The Madhya Pradesh government has decided to file a curative petition and also request the Union government/CBI to file a curative petition, before the Supreme Court to review its earlier decision to convert the charge against the accused in the carbide case from section 304-II IPC to Section 304 A IPC in 1996.
The state government has also decided to request the Union government/CBI to institute a joint task force to be headed by a person of eminence and of high integrity to probe the events that lead to the absconding of Warren Anderson. The state government is also setting up a fact-finding committee to fix responsibility and take appropriate action against erring officials who had failed in their respective statutory and regulatory duties at all levels leading to the most tragic industrial disaster.
This was announced by state minister Narottam Mishra at a press conference here tonight. Mr Mishra said that this decision is based on one of the recommendations made by the exert committee, headed by additional solicitor-general and former advocate general of Madhya Pradesh, Vivek Tankha. The committee was constituted by the state government for scrutinising various aspects of the chief judicial magistrate’s judgement of June 7 in the criminal case arising out of the Bhopal gas disaster.
All recommendations made by the committee have been accepted by the government after they were duly studied by chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan.
The experts committee has recommended that the state should also file an appeal in the Sessions Court against the chief judicial magistrate’s judgement of June 7. The state should challenge the sentence given by the trial court emphasising that it is grossly inadequate. The state may also request the Union government/CBI to file an appeal before the court of sessions against the CJM’s judgement, it has been advised.
It has also been recommended that the state should file a revision petition against the June 7 judgement seeking correction of various jurisdictional and substantial errors such as not committing the matter for trial to the Sessions Court under Section 323, CrPC for “Trial under Section 304-II IPC” in light of sufficient evidence brought on record during the course of trial. The 1996 judgement in Keshub Mahindra’s case will not act as a bar for communing the matter to the sessions court.