The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the CBI’s “curative” petition in the Bhopal gas tragedy case, upholding its 1996 verdict modifying the charges against Union Carbide India Ltd managing director Keshub Mahindra and other executives, but gave the agency liberty to bring fresh evidence against them before the sessions judge to slap more stringent charges under IPC provisions to seek enhanced sentences.

The judicial magistrate had convicted Mr Mahindra and six other Carbide India officials on June 7, 2010, and sentenced them to a two-year jail term. The CBI, in the curative petition, claimed it was the result of the Supreme Court’s 1996 verdict which reduced the charge of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” under IPC Section 304-II to “death due to negligence” under Section 304A against the accused.
Under Section 304-II there is a provision for maximum sentence of 10 years, but under Section 304A the maximum sentence is only two years.
Assailing the CBI for remaining “silent” for 14 years and waking up from its “slumber” only after the judicial magistrate’s order last year, a five-member Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia ruled on Wednesday: “The assumption (of the CBI) is wrong and without any basis. No satisfactory explanation is given to file such curative petitions after about 14 years from the 1996 judgment of the Supreme Court.”
Criticising the CBI for not doing anything in the past 14 years to strengthen the case against the accused by bringing fresh evidence on record, the bench, which also included Justices Altamas Kabir, R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy and Aftab Alam, unanimously held that the agency’s curative plea had “stemmed” from a wrong presumption of the law.
“It stems from a complete misapprehension in regard to the binding nature of the 1996 judgment. No decision by any court, this court (SC) not excluded, can be read in a manner as to nullify the express provisions of an act or code and the judgment never intended to do so,” Chief Justice Kapadia, writing the verdict for the bench, held.
The Supreme Court reminded the CBI that in the 1996 verdict it was at “pains to make it absolutely clear that its findings were based on the materials gathered in the investigation and brought before the court till that stage.”
“At every place in the judgment where the court records the finding or makes an observation in regard to the appropriate charge against the accused, it qualifies the finding or the observation by saying on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing charges. The words ‘at this stage’ is a kind of a constant refrain in that judgment,” the court pointed out on Wednesday.
“In our view, on the basis of the material on record, it is wrong to assume the 1996 judgement is a fetter against the proper exercise of powers by a court of competent jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the code (CrPC),” the court said.
After interpreting the relevant finding of the Supreme Court in its 1996 verdict, the bench permitted the CBI to bring on record new evidence when it pursues its appeal before the sessions court, in which the agency has already sought enhancement of charges. The Supreme Court further clarified that its 1996 verdict was never intended to “tie” the hands of the trial court or appellate courts below from exercising their powers under the relevant CrPC provisions.
“If the judicial magistrate failed to appreciate the correct legal position and misread the 1996 verdict... it can certainly be corrected by the appellate court,” the Supreme Court said, adding that the revision petition filed “belatedly” by the CBI and the Madhya Pradesh government was already before the sessions court.
Union law minister M. Veerappa Moily said the government would abide by the court’s decision on Wednesday. “We will go by the decision of the Supreme Court. After this matter came up, the GoM in its due wisdom decided to go for the curative petition. After obtaining the opinion of the attorney-general, we filed the curative petition, and the Supreme Court in its wisdom has dismissed it. We will abide by the decision,” Mr Moily said.
The law minister pointed out, however, that he was yet to go through the entire judgment, and noted that there were two parts of the curative petition — one related to the criminal case, the other on the civil liabilities and the compensation aspect, which was yet to be decided by the Supreme Court.
The issue of compensation was still open, Mr Moily said. “We have given more compensation. We have released more money from government funds. We came to help them (the victims).”