They are playing the apologists for the killer Union Carbide. The Group of Ministers constituted by the Prime Minister in the wake of public outrage over the 7th June verdict in Bhopal Gas disaster case, has recommended what the victims should have got in 1984 itself. But this time, even when they get their due, it would be coming from none other than the pockets of their own or may be the pockets of their tax payer brothers. 

Strangely enough, the media is beating its drums of celebrations, even when the clearer picture of the recommendations is yet to emerge. The compensation of Rs. 10 lakh in death cases, 5 lakh in permanent disability and 3 lakh in case of partial disability is so far a guess work. No one knows for sure, that every gas victim, who has been paid compensation earlier of whatever size, shall get the compensation. 

However, it is a matter of concern that the Union Government did choose to pay the Bhopal victims from its state exchequer. 

This reminds of a Supreme Court judgment, dated October 3, 1991, where Justice A.M.Ahamdi, who is in the eye of the storm for his infamous 1996 order, which diluted the charges against Carbide officials from 304 to 304 (a). 

He, for a change, took a totally pro victim stand in 1991. Not agreeing with his brother judges; Chief Justice Rangnath Misra, Justice M.N. Venkatchalliah, and Justice K.N.Singh  on the bench, wrote a dissent note on the issue of centre making good the shortfall in Carbide settlemt. The bench has been hearing the petitions challenging the $470 million 1989 settlement. 

In his dissent note; Justice Ahmadi said – “It would not be proper to saddle the Union of India with the liability to make good the shortfall by imposing an additional term in the settlement without its consent, in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution or any other statute or on the premise of its duty as welfare state. 

To my mind, therefore, its impermissible in law to impose burden of making good the shortfall on the union of India and thereby saddle the Indian tax payer with the tort-feasor’s liability, if at all. 

If I had come to the conclusion that the settlement fund was inadequate, I would have done the only logical thing of reviewing the settlement and left the parties to work out a fresh settlement.”

Justice Ahmadi, incidentally, is in the firing range, following the recommendations of the GoM submitted to the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.His ouster from the Bhopal Memorial Hospital Trust is said to be on the cards. This Its keeping in view of the public opinion which has been creating doubt over Justice Ahamadi’s role in 1996 pronouncement and his subsequent orders on the issue. 

Justice has been trying to justify his role as a judge with some evidences available in the criminal case against Anderson, but to no avail. Since all his acts speak louder against him than his futile, soft explanations, as to what and why he did it. 

May be a few years later, the current Group of Ministers, has to face the similar situation. But than may be by then it is all meaningless.   

 
rkeswani100@gmail.com