The petition in which the Centre has sought enhancement of compensation from Rs 750 crore to Rs 7,700 crore for victims was listed for hearing today but the apex court decided to take both the matters together on February 28 after perusing the documents relating to the case.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia took the decision during chamber proceedings on the two curative petitions, separetely filed by the CBI and the Centre.
"Place these petitions in the court," the bench also comprising Justices Altamas Kabir, R V Raveendran, B Sudershan Reddy and Aftab Alam, said. Curative petitions are generally heard in chambers of judges by circulation.
The apex court bench had on August 31 last decided to to re-examine its own judgement that led to lighter punishment of two years imprisonment for the accused including former Union Carbide India Chairman Keshub Mahindra.
The court had sought response from the seven accused on the CBI plea seeking restoration of the stringent charge of culpable homicide, which attracts a maximum punishment of 10 years' jail term, against them for the world's worst industrial disaster that left over 15,000 people dead and thousands maimed.
Besides Mahindra, Vijay Gokhale, the then Managing Director of UCIL, Kishore Kamdar, then Vice President, J N Mukund, then Works Manager, S P Choudhary, then Production Manager, K V Shetty, then Plant Superintendent and S I Quereshi, then Production Assistant were convicted and sentenced to two years' jail term by a trial court in Bhopal on June 7 this year.
Government had on December 3, the anniversary of the tragedy, moved the apex court seeking enhancment of compensation from Rs 750 crore to Rs 7,700 crore for the victims.
However, it had not issued notices on the plea of Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers seeking payment of additional damages from Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), Dow Chemicals Company (which owns UCC since 2001), Mcleod Russel India having 50.9 per cent share-holding of UCIL, and UCIL, which is currently known as Eveready Industries Ltd.
The curative petition in the criminal case was filed after a nationwide outrage over the trial court judgement in the 26-year-old case following which the Centre appointed a group of ministers (GoM) to recommend steps including ways to get the punishment enhanced.
The charge under section 304 part-II was diluted to section 304A by a bench comprising the then Chief Justice A M Ahmadi and Justice S B Majmudar on the plea of the accused in the 1984 gas disaster case.
The CBI has sought reconsideration of the September 13, 1996 apex court judgement which had whittled down the charge to 'causing death due to rash and negligent act' against Mahindra and six others.
The trial court verdict had sparked an outrage with activists and political parties seeking an appeal against it, maintaining the accused had been tried under a less stringent provision of law.
All the accused were tried as per the 1996 judgement of the apex court under section 304A of Indian Penal Code which attracts a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment for causing death by a rash and negligent act.
The filing of curative petition on the compensation issue on December 3 had coincided with the 26th anniversary of tragedy in which the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers has sought re-examination of the apex court's February 14, 1989 judgement by which the compensation was fixed at 470 million dollars (Rs 750 crore) and subsequent orders of February 15 and May 4 determining the mode of payment and settlement.
The apex court had also dismissed the petition to review its judgements and orders on October 3, 1991. The petition filed by the Centre in the capacity of legal guardian of the victims of the world's biggest industrial disaster has contended that the figure of 470 million dollar was arrived by the apex court on "incorrect and wrong assumption of facts and data in the impugned judgments".
The Centre has submitted that the apex court in its 1989 judgment had observed that the settlement was based on certain 'assumptions of truth' and if the said assumptions are unrelated to 'realities', then the 'element of justness' of the settlement would seriously be impaired and liberty was given to approach the court.
Government has termed the Bhopal gas tragedy as one of the "rarest of rare cases" and asked the apex court to exercise its jurisdiction to address the error in its judgements on the issue "in public interest" apparent.
It said the companies are responsible for the disaster and as such "the tax payers' money cannot be utilized for the purposes of meeting the liability of the companies which are tort-feasors (wrong doers)".
The Centre maintained that UCC and its subsidiary named in its petition were jointly and severally liable for payment of the claims as "it has emerged that basic underlying assumptions of fact and data in the impugned judgments and orders are incorrect, thereby vitiating the very foundation on which the compensation was awarded".
The Centre contended that in the comprehensive review that was conducted by it in June, 2010, it has emerged that the figures that formed the basis of the compensation awarded by this court are "completely incorrect".
It said the compensation in 1989 was decided on the basis of assessment that there were 3000 deaths, 20,000 people with temporary injury and 50,000 with minor injury. However, the figure as estimated now stands as 5,295 deaths, 35,000 people with temporary injury and 5.27 lakh with minor injury, the petition said.
"In these circumstances, the petitioner is approaching this court for remedying the manifest injustice that has resulted from the incorrect assumptions of fact in the impugned orders pursuant to the liberty granted by this court," the Centre said in its petition.
Government said filing of the curative petition was an attempt by it "to cure gross miscarriage of justice and perpetration of irremediable injustice being suffered by the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy.
"It is submitted that the settlement compensation amount determined by this court was based on certain factual assumptions which have been found to be completely incorrect and far removed from reality. This has vitiated the very basis of the compensation," it said.
The petition said it was claiming compensation on behalf of the victims as Rs 1743.15 crore was incurred by it on account of actual expenditure incurred by the state towards relief and rehabilition measures.