By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court informed the Centre on Wednesday it can not act like a “knight in shining armour” and determine its healing plea searching for a further Rs 7,844 crore from the successor companies of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) for giving compensation to the victims of the 1984 Bhopal fuel tragedy.
The prime courtroom mentioned it has already spoken about ‘maryada’ (sanctity) of its healing jurisdiction and is constrained by legislation regardless of having some leeway.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul informed Attorney General R Venkataramani, showing for the Centre, “It is very easy to dip into someone else’s pocket and take out the money. Dip into your own pocket and give the money and then see if you can dip into their (UCC) pocket or not”.
The Centre desires one other Rs 7,844 crore from the US-based UCC’s successor companies over and above the USD 470 million (Rs 715 crore) it obtained from the American firm as a part of the settlement in 1989.
Justice Kaul, who questioned the Centre over the submitting of the healing plea, mentioned, “I began by saying ‘maryada’ of the jurisdiction. You see, we cannot be a knight in shining armour. It is not possible. We are constrained by law, although we have some leeway. But we cannot say that we will decide a curative petition on the basis of jurisdiction of an original suit”.
A healing petition is the final resort for a plaintiff after an antagonistic judgement has been delivered and the plea for its overview is rejected.
The Centre had not filed a overview petition for rescinding the settlement which it now desires to be enhanced.
The bench, additionally comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari, which heard Venkataramani for over seven hours, together with the listening to on Tuesday, mentioned, “As far as legal responsibility and quantum of compensation is anxious, it’s all the time open to the events to say that I wish to enter right into a settlement and eliminate any form of litigation.
Now, you (the Centre) wish to modify the settlement.
Can you do it unilaterally? It is just not a decree however a compromise”.
Venkataramani mentioned the apex courtroom had endorsed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the scheme underneath it.
“Anything that was to be determined by the Welfare Commissioner under the Act and the scheme was to be brought before the court at a later point of time. That is exactly what we are trying to do now,” he mentioned, explaining the rationale behind submitting the healing petition.
The Centre has been insisting that the enormity of the particular injury triggered to human lives and the setting couldn’t be assessed correctly on the time of the settlement in 1989.
The AG mentioned wanting on the enormity of the human tragedy, which was unprecedented, it is rather vital to transcend among the typical ideas.
Justice Kaul responded, saying “Nobody doubts the enormity of the tragedy and undoubtedly people have suffered. It is easy to get emotive but we on this side of the bench have to refrain because we do not have the privilege to play in the gallery.”
He informed Venkataramani the judges must see on what jurisdiction they’re sitting and finally each dispute should have a closure sooner or later in time.
“It is not that we are not sensitive to what had happened, but when the Supreme Court does something it has wider ramifications. There has to be the sanctity of a settlement, especially in today’s time, when there is so much international trade and commerce,” Justice Kaul mentioned and identified that the Centre didn’t file a overview petition however a healing petition after over 20 years of the settlement.
Venkataramani mentioned the tragedy had made an enormous distinction within the lives of individuals as youngsters had been born with deformities and moms needed to bear a burden for a very long time.
Justice Kaul mentioned, “You acted on a premise for a quarter of a century. Now, you say you want to act differently. No one prohibits the government of India from taking a proactive approach that it feels strongly that these people deserve more. The problem is you are putting it on them (UCC). Can we open everything at this point of time? In curative (petition), this court has to travel a very narrow path.”
Venkataramani mentioned he’s attempting to attach the dots and he’s going again to 1989 when the settlement came about however there have been extra dots after 1989.
Justice Kaul mentioned if in a welfare society, the federal government is so involved that the victims must be paid extra, then it ought to have paid them.
The Attorney General mentioned the query right here is just not about who pays however whose legal responsibility it’s to pay. The listening to remained inconclusive and can proceed on Thursday.
The prime courtroom had on Tuesday questioned the Centre for pursuing its healing plea searching for extra funds from UCC, saying the federal government can not reopen a settlement that was arrived at with the corporate after over 30 years.
The UCC, now owned by Dow Chemicals, gave a compensation of Rs USD 470 million (Rs 715 crore on the time of settlement in 1989) after the poisonous methyl isocyanate fuel leak from the Union Carbide manufacturing unit on the intervening night time of December 2 and three, 1984 killed over 3,000 individuals and affected 1.02 lakh extra.
The survivors of the tragedy have been combating for a protracted for satisfactory compensation and correct medical therapy for illnesses attributable to the toxic fuel leak.
The Centre had filed the healing petition within the apex courtroom in December 2010 for enhanced compensation.
On June 7, 2010, a Bhopal courtroom sentenced seven executives of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) to 2 years imprisonment.
The then UCC chairman Warren Anderson was the prime accused within the case however didn’t seem for the trial. On February 1, 1992, the Bhopal CJM courtroom declared him an absconder.
The courts in Bhopal had issued non-bailable warrants towards Anderson twice in 1992 and 2009 earlier than his loss of life in September 2014.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court informed the Centre on Wednesday it can not act like a “knight in shining armour” and determine its healing plea searching for a further Rs 7,844 crore from the successor companies of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) for giving compensation to the victims of the 1984 Bhopal fuel tragedy.
The prime courtroom mentioned it has already spoken about ‘maryada’ (sanctity) of its healing jurisdiction and is constrained by legislation regardless of having some leeway.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul informed Attorney General R Venkataramani, showing for the Centre, “It is very easy to dip into someone else’s pocket and take out the money. Dip into your own pocket and give the money and then see if you can dip into their (UCC) pocket or not”.
The Centre desires one other Rs 7,844 crore from the US-based UCC’s successor companies over and above the USD 470 million (Rs 715 crore) it obtained from the American firm as a part of the settlement in 1989.
Justice Kaul, who questioned the Centre over the submitting of the healing plea, mentioned, “I began by saying ‘maryada’ of the jurisdiction. You see, we cannot be a knight in shining armour. It is not possible. We are constrained by law, although we have some leeway. But we cannot say that we will decide a curative petition on the basis of jurisdiction of an original suit”.
A healing petition is the final resort for a plaintiff after an antagonistic judgement has been delivered and the plea for its overview is rejected.
The Centre had not filed a overview petition for rescinding the settlement which it now desires to be enhanced.
The bench, additionally comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari, which heard Venkataramani for over seven hours, together with the listening to on Tuesday, mentioned, “As far as legal responsibility and quantum of compensation is anxious, it’s all the time open to the events to say that I wish to enter right into a settlement and eliminate any form of litigation.
Now, you (the Centre) wish to modify the settlement.
Can you do it unilaterally? It is just not a decree however a compromise”.
Venkataramani mentioned the apex courtroom had endorsed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the scheme underneath it.
“Anything that was to be determined by the Welfare Commissioner under the Act and the scheme was to be brought before the court at a later point of time. That is exactly what we are trying to do now,” he mentioned, explaining the rationale behind submitting the healing petition.
The Centre has been insisting that the enormity of the particular injury triggered to human lives and the setting couldn’t be assessed correctly on the time of the settlement in 1989.
The AG mentioned wanting on the enormity of the human tragedy, which was unprecedented, it is rather vital to transcend among the typical ideas.
Justice Kaul responded, saying “Nobody doubts the enormity of the tragedy and undoubtedly people have suffered. It is easy to get emotive but we on this side of the bench have to refrain because we do not have the privilege to play in the gallery.”
He informed Venkataramani the judges must see on what jurisdiction they’re sitting and finally each dispute should have a closure sooner or later in time.
“It is not that we are not sensitive to what had happened, but when the Supreme Court does something it has wider ramifications. There has to be the sanctity of a settlement, especially in today’s time, when there is so much international trade and commerce,” Justice Kaul mentioned and identified that the Centre didn’t file a overview petition however a healing petition after over 20 years of the settlement.
Venkataramani mentioned the tragedy had made an enormous distinction within the lives of individuals as youngsters had been born with deformities and moms needed to bear a burden for a very long time.
Justice Kaul mentioned, “You acted on a premise for a quarter of a century. Now, you say you want to act differently. No one prohibits the government of India from taking a proactive approach that it feels strongly that these people deserve more. The problem is you are putting it on them (UCC). Can we open everything at this point of time? In curative (petition), this court has to travel a very narrow path.”
Venkataramani mentioned he’s attempting to attach the dots and he’s going again to 1989 when the settlement came about however there have been extra dots after 1989.
Justice Kaul mentioned if in a welfare society, the federal government is so involved that the victims must be paid extra, then it ought to have paid them.
The Attorney General mentioned the query right here is just not about who pays however whose legal responsibility it’s to pay. The listening to remained inconclusive and can proceed on Thursday.
The prime courtroom had on Tuesday questioned the Centre for pursuing its healing plea searching for extra funds from UCC, saying the federal government can not reopen a settlement that was arrived at with the corporate after over 30 years.
The UCC, now owned by Dow Chemicals, gave a compensation of Rs USD 470 million (Rs 715 crore on the time of settlement in 1989) after the poisonous methyl isocyanate fuel leak from the Union Carbide manufacturing unit on the intervening night time of December 2 and three, 1984 killed over 3,000 individuals and affected 1.02 lakh extra.
The survivors of the tragedy have been combating for a protracted for satisfactory compensation and correct medical therapy for illnesses attributable to the toxic fuel leak.
The Centre had filed the healing petition within the apex courtroom in December 2010 for enhanced compensation.
On June 7, 2010, a Bhopal courtroom sentenced seven executives of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) to 2 years imprisonment.
The then UCC chairman Warren Anderson was the prime accused within the case however didn’t seem for the trial. On February 1, 1992, the Bhopal CJM courtroom declared him an absconder.
The courts in Bhopal had issued non-bailable warrants towards Anderson twice in 1992 and 2009 earlier than his loss of life in September 2014.
