Skip to main content

Bhopal gas tragedy

 Bhopal Gas Tragedy

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy was a deadly disaster that occurred in Bhopal, India, killing thousands and injuring thousands more for life. This is regarded as one of the most heinous and deadly industrial disasters.


On a cold winter night in 1984, the lethal Methyl isocyanate Gas (MIC) leaked from the Union Carbide factory, resulting in the world's worst industrial disaster. In the 1970s, the Indian government encouraged foreign investment in domestic industries, and Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) was asked to build a plant in Bhopal to manufacture Sevin, a pesticide widely used throughout Asia. The Indian government-owned a 22 percent stake in the company's subsidiary Union Carbide India Ltd.

On December 2, 1984, a small MIC gas leak was discovered. A plume of MIC gas was present in the air on the morning of December 3, 1984, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. According to estimates, 3,800 people died immediately, the majority of whom lived in poor slums adjacent to the plant. The estimated number of deaths in the first few days was more than 10,000, with 15,000 – 20,000 premature deaths reported over the next two decades. Following the incident, UCC attempted to absolve itself of responsibility by shifting the blame to UCIL (Union Carbide India Ltd), claiming that the plant was fully built and operated by the Indian subsidiary, UCIL.

The Legal Fight: 

 In February 1985, the Indian Government filed a case in the United States Court for a $3.3 billion claim against the Union Carbide Corporation. However, by 1986, all of these cases in the US District Court had been transferred to India on the grounds of forum non convenience. It means that the case should be moved to a more convenient location so that the trial can proceed as smoothly as possible. Meanwhile, in March 1985, the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act was passed, empowering the Central Government to become the sole representative of all victims in all types of litigations, ensuring that the interests of the disaster's victims are fully protected and compensation claims are pursued expeditiously.

In 1987, cases were filed in the Bhopal District Court, and the Union Carbide Corporation was ordered to pay 350 crores in interim compensation. However, because the interim order could not be decreed, the UCC refused to pay the amount. This interim compensation amount was later reduced to 250 crores by the High Court. Both the Union of India and the UCC sought special leave to appeal this High Court's decision.

The issue of absolute liability is one of the main issues raised by the Bhopal Gas tragedy. In the case of M.C Mehta v Union of India, this issue was thoroughly discussed. The principle of absolute liability states that when an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry and any harm results as a result of such activity, the enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate for such harm, and it should not be an answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. The principle of safe design in such industries would be to guard against more than just the most predictable, routine types of accidents.

As a result, we can easily distinguish between the Strict Liability and Absolute Liability principles. Strict liability applies to all things that exist in a location, but absolute liability only applies to things that cause harm or damages, and it must be in relation to hazardous and toxic substances. As a result, the court has narrowed the principle of strict liability.

JUDFEMENT OF THE CASE:

All of these arguments were rejected, and all of the accused were found guilty and sentenced to prison as well as fines. These orders, however, could not be enforced because some of the accused did not appear in court. Mr. Warren Anderson, who was the chairman of the UCC at the time of the disaster, is still at large, and all requests for his extradition have been denied by the US government.

Following the passage of this act, the principle of absolute liability was given greater emphasis, and the Indian judicial system took a positive step by adopting it. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy was an event whose aftereffects can still be seen in many new born children who were born with abnormalities, and it was critical to direct all industries established near the residential area to take all precautions and not play with people's precious lives.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more