Case Law On Judicial Review And Compensation For Victims

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

⚖️ 1. Rana Plaza Collapse – Bangladesh (2013)

Case: State v. Sohel Rana & Others

Facts:

On April 24, 2013, the Rana Plaza building in Dhaka collapsed, killing over 1,100 garment workers and injuring 2,500+.

Building owner Sohel Rana had constructed additional floors illegally. Workers were forced to attend work despite visible cracks.

Legal Issues:

Judicial review of administrative negligence in building approval and safety inspection.

Liability of building owners and factory management for worker deaths.

Compensation for victims’ families under civil and labor law provisions.

Judgment/Outcome:

Criminal proceedings initiated under Bangladesh Penal Code sections for culpable homicide and abetment.

Courts recognized the right of workers to life and safety, mandating compensation for victims.

In subsequent civil actions, Rana Plaza Trust distributed compensation to affected families, setting a precedent for judicially monitored victim compensation in industrial disasters.

Legal Principle:

Courts can intervene to enforce rights of victims where state or regulatory failure contributes to death or injury; judicial review ensures accountability and mandates compensation.

⚖️ 2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – Oleum Gas Leak Case (1987)

Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1086

Facts:

A leak of oleum gas from Shriram Fertilizers in Delhi caused deaths and injuries.

Victims and residents filed petitions seeking relief and compensation.

Legal Issues:

Judicial review of industrial negligence and liability.

Scope of compensation under public law and tort principles.

Judgment:

Supreme Court held that industries engaged in hazardous activity have absolute liability.

Compensation for victims is mandatory, and courts can direct industry to pay even if negligence was unintentional.

Legal Principle:

Absolute liability doctrine allows courts to order prompt compensation to victims, bypassing the need to prove negligence.
Judicial review ensures enforcement of environmental and safety standards.

⚖️ 3. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

Citation: AIR 1996 SC 2715

Facts:

Industrial units were discharging untreated effluents into rivers in Tamil Nadu, causing severe water pollution and health hazards.

Legal Issues:

Judicial review of state pollution control boards’ failure to enforce law.

Compensation claims for communities affected by environmental pollution.

Judgment:

Supreme Court applied Polluter Pays Principle.

Court ordered closure of polluting units and payment of compensation to affected residents.

Emphasized judicial oversight in environmental enforcement and victim relief.

Legal Principle:

Courts can intervene in regulatory failures, holding polluters accountable and awarding victim compensation.
Judicial review serves both preventive and remedial functions.

⚖️ 4. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

Citation: AIR 2000 SC 3751

Facts:

Large dams on the Narmada River caused displacement of thousands, soil erosion, and flooding of agricultural land.

Legal Issues:

Petitioners challenged environmental clearances and lack of rehabilitation for displaced persons.

Judicial review of administrative actions under Environmental Protection Act and constitutional rights.

Judgment:

Supreme Court allowed the project but required strict compliance with rehabilitation and environmental safeguards.

Ordered monetary and non-monetary compensation for displaced communities.

Legal Principle:

Judicial review ensures state accountability in public projects, protecting victims’ rights to livelihood, habitat, and compensation.

⚖️ 5. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India – Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984/1989)

Facts:

Gas leak at Union Carbide plant in Bhopal killed over 3,000 immediately, injuring thousands more.

Legal Issues:

Judicial review of state settlement of claims, adequacy of compensation, and corporate liability.

Whether foreign corporations can be held accountable in domestic courts.

Judgment/Outcome:

Supreme Court approved a $470 million settlement with Union Carbide.

Court emphasized compensation to victims as primary remedy, while also mandating environmental remediation.

Legal Principle:

Courts play a critical role in overseeing settlements to ensure victims’ rights are not compromised.
Judicial review protects against under-compensation and enforces remedial justice.

⚖️ 6. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

Citation: AIR 1996 SC 1446

Facts:

Hazardous chemical industries discharged pesticides and other toxic chemicals, contaminating soil and groundwater in villages.

Legal Issues:

Victims demanded compensation for health impacts and environmental damage.

Judicial review of pollution control authorities’ inaction.

Judgment:

Supreme Court ordered industries to pay compensation and undertake environmental cleanup.

Strengthened Polluter Pays Principle and environmental tort liability.

Legal Principle:

Courts can enforce both compensation and restoration through judicial review, ensuring victims are not left without remedy.

🔑 Key Takeaways

Case	Issue	Judicial Review Role	Compensation Outcome	Legal Principle
Rana Plaza Collapse	Industrial negligence	Review of building approval, regulatory failure	Compensation to workers’ families	Accountability of owners and state
Oleum Gas Leak	Industrial hazard	Enforce absolute liability	Mandatory victim compensation	Absolute liability doctrine
Vellore Citizens	Water pollution	Review of pollution boards’ failure	Closure + compensation	Polluter pays principle
Narmada Bachao	Displacement & environmental harm	Review of clearance & rehab plans	Rehabilitation & monetary compensation	Precautionary principle & victims’ rights
Bhopal Gas Tragedy	Mass industrial disaster	Oversight of settlement adequacy	$470M settlement, environmental remediation	Judicial protection of victims
Enviro-Legal Action	Soil & water contamination	Enforcement of environmental law	Cleanup + victim compensation	Polluter pays + restorative justice