As the blame game on the Bhopal gas tragedy case has sharpened, five judicial events on criminal and vicarious liabilities in the case have become very crucial to find the answers on the accountability of the concerned persons involved in handling the case at various stages.
In all these five events, the then Central government and its prosecuting agency, CBI, had played an important role and it becomes imperative as who were the officials giving brief to the agency, which looked as if it had pursued the litigation in a “half-hearted” manner despite the high magnitude of the disaster.
Event 1: VIP like treatment was given to Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) chief Warren Anderson during his brief arrest on December 7, 1984. The UCC chief on arrival at Bhopal was straightaway taken to a guest house with Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) top officials by the Bhopal deputy commissioner Moti Singh and SSP Swaraj Puri.
After a few hours, Anderson was whisked away from backdoor to be flown to Delhi while UCIL official A.N. Kuruvella signed his bail papers in absentia before a judicial magistrate in Bhopal. It was a rare case when the accused was not even required to appear before the court. Kuruvella later had gone on record to say that he was forced to sign the bail bond by the police officers. Names of two US diplomats — A. Baker and Gorder Streeb — who immediately swung into action after the arrest of UCC chief, played a crucial role in handling the matter. Event 2: New Delhi agreeing to shift the case of vicarious liability against the UCC from the US court to India and diluting its initial $3-billion claim to mere $470-million, which was only 15 per cent of the original suit.
Event 3: The Supreme Court giving approval on $ 470 million award in an out-of-court settlement by UCC with the government on February 14, 1989 and freeing UCIL as well as UCC officials of any criminal liability. The question arises that who in government signed the deal.
Event 4: Supreme Court in its 1992 judgment restoring the charge of criminal liability against the UCIL officials and Anderson and separating it from vicarious liability. CBI given go ahead to launch the prosecution. Again the question arises as who were the officials to change the decision.
Event 5: Top Court diluting the charge of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” under Section 304-Part-II of IPC an offence equitant to “manslaughter” in the US and making it a case of “causing death due to negligence.”