There must be something intrinsically uncaring about the system we run. After the hue and cry over the extra mild punishment awarded by Bhopal’s chief judicial magistrate in the December 1984 Union Carbide gas leak case, said to be the worst industrial disaster in the world, with a death toll close to 20,000 and another half a million people injured or otherwise affected, the government set up a Group of Ministers to examine how best to advance the cause of the victims of the tragedy 26 years ago, and how to correct the equation on the justice front. The only visible outcome arising from that step is that the CBI filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court asking that the provision under which top officials of Union Carbide India were booked be changed from Section 304(a) IPC — accident caused due to “negligence” — that the court had earlier sanctioned, to Section 304(b) IPC — culpable homicide not amounting to murder — so that the punishment attracted by the company officials may be enhanced from two years, with bail allowed, to 10 years. The Supreme Court has accordingly issued suitable notices to Keshub Mahindra, who was Carbide India’s chairman at the time of the accident, and six others. This is all to the good. After all, the CBI’s contention is that there is enough material to show that top company officials were aware that the plant designs were faulty and yet took no remedial action. If the new move succeeds, the top company bosses might just serve a prolonged spell in prison, although such an occurrence will do nothing to enhance the financial compensation for the victims’ families.
It is noteworthy that the CBI has been silent on the question of bringing to trial former Union Carbide chairman Warren Anderson, who now lives in seclusion in the United States, although Mr Anderson is said to have sanctioned the lowering of the stringency of safety mechanisms at Bhopal in order to cut running costs. More than the CBI, it is the government’s silence that is baffling, especially since the US authorities have recently changed their stance to say they will give due regard to an Indian request for Mr Anderson’s extradition and trial. The government’s lack of alacrity in seizing on this new opening might suggest one of two things: that it is not really interested in getting the former UCC chief before an Indian court although he is an absconder (not responding to a Bhopal court summons in spite of having been granted bail on condition that he will present himself when required), or that it thinks it doesn’t have material against the octogenarian of a kind that might pass muster in America. In either case, for the sake of transparency, the government would do well to share with the people the constraints it labours under. The GoM has surprisingly also not seen it fit to take the battle to Dow Chemicals, which took over the obligations of UCC. If this can be done successfully, there is a very real chance of the compensation package being made more substantial even at this late stage. So far, the victims’ families have got less than `20,000 for an accident whose enormity continues to shock the world.
The curative petition is a good thought. It is in line with the universal view that the punishment meted out for the disaster is less than notional, and must be raised. But a better idea might be to craft new legislation to deal with something the magnitude of Bhopal and then make the effort to make its application retrospective. The GoM’s work cannot end with this, of course. Most important, it must address the issue of enhanced compensation, and getting the environmental mess left behind by the disaster cleared.