Facts:

• The Union of India, on behalf of the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, was the Appellant in the case.UCC (Union Carbide Corporation), a New York-based corporation, was the Respondent and owned 50.9% of M/s Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) at the time of the tragedy.
• On December 2nd and 3rd, 1984, the release of deadly fumes from UCIL's Bhopal factory resulted in a disaster described by the Court as "unparalleled in magnitude and devastation."
• Under the 1989 order, the Supreme Court mandated UCC to pay $470 million to the Union of India, settling all claims related to the Bhopal Gas disaster.
• The Union of India filed curative petitions to reconsider the settlement after the tragedy.
  

Background:

Legislative background:

• On 20.02.1985, the Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which granted the Central Government exclusive rights to represent claimants and handle compensation.
• Following this, the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration and Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985, was established to outline the procedures for filing and processing claims as per the Act.
  

District Court’s Holding:

• The Union of India initiated a suit against UCC before the District Judge, Bhopal, seeking compensation of approximately US $3.3 billion.
• The Appellant requested interim compensation from UCC due to concerns regarding the availability of funds for compensating victims.
• On 17 December 1987, the District Judge issued an interim order directing UCC to deposit Rs. 350 crores as interim compensation.
  

High Court’s Holding:

• The Respondent filed a revision petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the District Judge’s decision.
• The High Court, vide its order on 4 April 1988, reduced the amount to Rs. 250 crores.
  

Supreme Court’s Holding:

• The Appellant and Respondent filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court to challenge the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision.
• The Supreme Court facilitated successful negotiations, resulting in UCC agreeing to pay US $470 million to resolve all claims related to the Bhopal Gas disaster.
• After reviewing the pleadings, data, and negotiations, the Court deemed the settlement amount of US $470 million just and reasonable, mandating its payment by 31 March 1989 and closure of all proceedings.
  

Settlement Order passed in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. 1 (1989) 3 SCC 38 on 04.05.1989:

• On 04.05.1989, the Supreme Court issued a detailed order in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. 1 (1989) 3 SCC 38, emphasising the urgent need for immediate relief for thousands of destitute victims of the Bhopal Gas disaster.
• The settlement amount was set at $470 million. The Court added a caveat that if evidence showed UCC had offered a higher amount earlier, it would reconsider the settlement.
  

Review of the Settlement (1991) in Union Carbide Corporation & Others v. Union of India & Others (1991) 4 SCC 584:

• Private parties sought to reopen the settlement by filing a review, challenging the Supreme Court's authority to record the settlement.
• A Constitution Bench upheld the settlement but reviewed the aspect of extinguishing criminal liabilities, deeming it inappropriate.
• The Court noted that any decree exceeding UCC’s Indian assets would require enforcement in U.S. courts, where it could face challenges under due process.
  

Attempt to Reopen Settlement

• In Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors (2007), 9 SCC 707 victims sought to reopen the settlement for enhanced compensation.
• The Supreme Court rejected this attempt, affirming the finality of the settlement and noting the Union of India’s opposition. The Court stated it would review the settlement if the number of death or disability cases exceeded the original assumptions but found no sufficient grounds for alteration.
  

Present Curative petition:

• The Union of India filed curative petitions before the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of the settlement reached after the Bhopal Gas tragedy.
  
  

Main Issue:

1. Whether the compensation granted to the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy in 1989 adequate or needs enhancement?