Litigation policy to prevent repeat of Bhopal gas leak cases

Launching the National Litigation Policy to make government an "efficient and a responsible" litigant, law minister M Veerappa Moily today said the monitoring and review mechanism proposed under it would prevent "delay or neglect" of important cases such as the Bhopal gas tragedy.

Moily said the Policy recognised the fact that the government and its various agencies were the predominant litigants in courts and tribunals in the country.

"Its (the policy's) aim is to transform government into an efficient and a responsible litigant," he told a press conference here.
 
Noting that the policy took into account the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of citizens and to respect fundamental rights, the law minister said those in-charge of the conduct of official litigation should never forget this basic principle.

Under the policy, Moily said the government would categorise and group court cases so that those contesting on behalf of the government could prioritise them.

"If this is in place, ultimately, constant review, prioritising and categorisation will track everything. Maybe cases like the Bhopal one will not be repeated in this country. That is the target of this (policy)," he said.
   
The minister also noted that "a sensitised and sensitive" government would represent all these cases so that there was "no delay or neglect" at any stage (in cases like the Bhopal catastrophe).
    
Moily said these systems will be in place so that the delay witnessed in the Bhopal case did not become a norm as "justice delayed is justice buried."

Asked about the curative petition that the Group of Ministers (GOM) on the Bhopal case was considering, attorney general GE Vahanvati, who was present, said the law minister had only made "a suggestion" before the GOM and it was not "a considered opinion".

Vahanvati said the GOM's report had to first go to the Cabinet, which had to approve the suggestion.
    
He claimed the 1996 Supreme Court order in the Bhopal gas leak case was "wrong as a matter of law."
    
Based on the available evidence, the Supreme Court had in 1996 reduced the charge against the accused in the Bhopal case from culpable homicide not amounting to murder to causing death by negligence.
    
"I am not criticising the judgement....I am entitled to tell you that it is wrong. I say it as a matter of law. I believe there are contradictions in the judgement and there are lots of material that have come up post that judgement," he said.

Vahanvati pointed to evidence that people knew there was a flaw in the (Union Carbide) plant and as a matter of economy they did not rectify the flaws.
 
He said the curative petition was a mechanism created by the Supreme Court itself to correct its own errors and eliminate injustice caused by its earlier orders.

On the increase in honour killing cases, he said the Home Ministry had already drafted a Bill, which had been vetted and
it would be a tight law to put an end to such heinous crimes.

Moily said under the new litigation policy, which he expected the state government to follow with their own policy, the government would cease to be "a compulsive" litigant.

"The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded. The easy approach 'let the court decide' must be eschewed and condemned," he said.
    
The government would appoint empowered committees, to be chaired at the national level by the attorney general, to monitor implementation of the policy and to fix accountability of the government departments to follow the principles laid down by the policy.

Moily said the government lawyers would avoid seeking adjournments, except in the initial stages of the case when responses from the government departments were required on petitions.
    
"Unnecessary and frequent adjournments by government lawyers will be frowned upon and infractions dealt with seriously," he added.

Under the policy, the government would not refrain from going in for appeals against ex parte and interim orders, but first attempt to get those orders vacated instead.

Also, appeal against orders of tribunals, meant to remove the loads of courts, would be an exception and not a matter of routine.

Matters relating to individual grievances such as service related pleas, pensions and retirement benefits would not be appealed against.

The government, Moily said, would also ensure that there were no delays in appeals where high revenue stakes were involved and the departments heads would be responsible for timely filing of such appeals.
    
The government, he said, would encourage arbitration and alternative dispute resolution means to ensure quicker justice out of courts.