The silence of the trial court in its verdict on the criminal liability of Union Carbide’s chief Warren Anderson in the Bhopal gas tragedy indicated that he had succeeded in “exploiting” in his favour the passage of a special law by the Centre to deal with all cases related to the disaster and two subsequent verdicts passed by the Supreme Court in the matter.
Anderson, who was virtually allowed to “escape” from India a few days after the disaster had taken “advantage” of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claim) Act passed by the Centre in 1985 and the Supreme Court’s February 14, 1989 order approving Indian government’s compensation deal with the UCC.
As per the out-of-court settlement reached by the Indian government with the UCC, the company was to pay $470 million as compensation to the victims but this was reduced to $ 425 in the approval order by the apex court.
Strangely, in the settlement order, the top court quashed all “criminal proceedings” related to the disaster. But this came in for severe criticism from various quarters, including NGOs and human rights organisations, resulting in filing of review petitions.
This led to passage of another judgement by the apex court in 1992, modifying its 1989 verdict relating to the criminal liability and separating it form the compensation issue.
While refusing to make any changes relating to the government’s settlement with UCC, the apex court allowed the CBI to go ahead with the prosecution of Anderson and other UCC officials.
“The quashing of the criminal proceedings was not justified,” the top court in its review order had said.
On the other hand, the government had justified the passage of the Bhopal Gas Act on the ground that it would help in faster settlement of the otherwise “complex” claim cases if fought individually by thousands of victims in a long drawn legal battle with a powerful multinational and also due to multiple litigations both in India and the US.