SC refuses to reopen 1996 order on Bhopal tragedy

The Supreme Court today dismissed the Central Bureau of Investigation’s petition to set aside the former’s judgment of 1996 in the Bhopal gas case.

However, it gave the investigating agency the choice to pursue the case in a Bhopal sessions court to press for higher punishment for the guilty.

The then chairman of Union Carbide, Keshub Mahindra, whose plant leaked lethal gas, killing over 5,000 persons in December 1984, and seven other top executives were convicted and sentenced to two years last year by a Bhopal court on a count of negligence. CBI had moved the Supreme Court to enhance the punishment.

The central government has also moved another curative petition regarding the amount of compensation. It had sought enhancement of the compensation from Rs 750 crore to Rs 7,700 crore for the Bhopal gas victims, though the government itself had agreed to settle the issue at the former amount. The Constitution bench is yet to hear that petition.

The ‘curative petition’ moved by the CBI is “based on a plea that is wrong and fallacious”, the constitution bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said in a unanimous judgment. It added: “Also, no satisfactory explanation is given to file such a curative petition after about 14 years.”

The CBI moved the curative petition, the last resort to review a Supreme Court judgment, contending the1996 judgment scaled down the charges against Union Carbide executives. The present five-judge Constitution bench defended the 1996 judgment, stating the judges of those days acted on the evidence available to them at the time of framing charges and material before them “till that stage”. They did not tie the hands of the magistrate to frame charges according to new evidence.

In fact, when the organisations of the gas victims moved petitions for enhancing the punishment, the CBI did not support them. It was only later, in August last year, that the CBI and the state government moved applications for framing charges for culpable homicide. These are pending before the sessions court.

According to today’s judgment, those applications can still be pressed to frame higher criminal charges against the accused persons. The 1996 judgment did not tie the hands of the magistrate to frame higher charges. If there was any misunderstanding about the 1996 order, it can still be corrected in the sessions court proceedings, the court said.

The curative petition in the criminal case was filed following public uproar over the light sentence. The Centre appointed a group of ministers to recommend steps, including ways to get the punishment enhanced.