Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case – Curative petitions filed by the Union of India seeking increase in the settlement amount – Held: Present petitions were filed by the Union of India 19 years post the settlement seeking to reopen the same – The very basis for the original settlement was the need to provide immediate succour to the victims through medical relief, rehabilitation measures etc. – Without a settlement, immediate funds would not have been available for the victims – Finality was reached at an early stage by way of the settlement – Endeavours to reopen the same proved unsuccessful – Now the curative petitions have been filed by the Union of India having not filed review petitions – Further, admittedly, the amount of settlement was found to be in surplus of the actual requirement – Thus, settlement amount was sufficient to compensate the claimants – Rs.50 crore remains with the Reserve Bank of India lying undisbursed – The exchange rate worked in the Union’s favour as the exchange rate of the Dollar rate escalated – Some interest on the settlement amount also came in – Furthermore, in the review judgment, in case of a shortage, the responsibility was placed on the Union of India to make good the deficiency and to take out the relevant insurance policies – However, no such insurance policy was taken out – The Union cannot be negligent on this aspect and then seek a prayer to fix such liability on UCC – Rs.50 crore lying with the RBI to be utilised by the Union of India to satisfy pending claims, if any, in accordance with the 1985 Act and the Scheme framed thereunder – Union of India’s claim for ‘topping up’ the settlement amount has no foundations in any known legal principle – Curative petitions not entertained – Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985.
Curative petition – Held: A curative petition relates to a reexamination of a final judgment of Supreme Court that has already undergone such re-examination through the review jurisdiction – Court’s inherent power ought not to be exercised as a matter of course – Court should be circumspect in reconsidering an order that had become final on dismissal of the review petition – However, in the present case in view of the nature of the matter, the curative petitions were examined despite the preliminary objection on maintainability.
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 38 : [1989] 3 SCR 128; Union Carbide Corporation & Others v. Union of India & Others (1991)
4 SCC 584 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 251; Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 707 : [2007] 6 SCR 24; Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388 : [2002] 2 SCR 1006; Union Carbide
Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India (2006) 13 SCC 321 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.