CBI versus Union Carbide
THE LEGAL battle against Carbide came full circle when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reopened criminal proceedings in the district court of Bhopal on November 11. This was in accordance with the V P Singh government's assurance it would reopen the criminal case against Carbide, after accusations of a sell-out in October 1989.
In its case, CBI seeks to prove that Carbide is guilty of mass murder, that it knew of safety rule violations at the Bhopal plant and has suppressed information on the toxic effects of MIC. It will ask for permission from the US government to inspect the safety systems at the plant there.
Carbide's contention that the accident was caused by sabotage pushes the blame for the gas leak on to UCIL's workers' union and absolve its managers of any criminal liability. After the leak, Carbide president Warren Anderson said safety systems at the Bhopal plant were identical to those in another plant in the US and the leak happened because Indian workers were incapable of handling the sophisticated technology involved in the production and handling of MIC. He contended that the workers were irked by retrenchments at the plant and wanted to "get back" at the management and so, they engineered the leak.
Prashant Bhushan, who represented the victims in the Supreme Court, feels the criminal case could help the victims. If Carbide is found guilty, it could end up paying a fine of several hundred crores of rupees. Implementation of such a ruling, however, would be a problem because no US court would recognise a fine levied by an Indian court.
Bhushan explains that the verdict of an earlier civil case, filed by the government in the Supreme Court in 1986, would have been enforceable in US courts, if the then government had not arrived at an out-of-court settlement for US$ 470 million with Carbide.
According to international legal expert M R Anderson, the Indian government had to opt for the settlement, for which it was severely indicted by the public and the media for "selling out" to Carbide, because it was under pressure to arrange for quick compensation for the victims. The government also realised it would have to approach US courts to enforce the verdict in the civil case, a process which would take time and give Carbide the upper hand.