Judgment, but no justice in Bhopal gas case

Sanjay Verma was home when the ticker on TV broke news of the Bhopal gas tragedy verdict. Six former Union Carbide officials and an assistant convicted, each sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined a paltry sum.

Suddenly, that December 3 morning more than 25 years ago flashed across Verma’s eyes: a city waking up to 4,000 deaths, seven in Verma’s family. A country outraged. A world shocked. The lingering effects of methyl isocyanate leak killing 21,000 people more down the years.

Verma would have relived those emotions, had it not been for the predictability of the judgment. “This verdict was on expected lines. The charges had been diluted against the accused; so nothing was left in this case,” he says. Then he gets agitated. “The government was not keen to fight this case… this case for the poor. Why did it not try to get (Warren) Anderson to India? If Abu Salem can be extradited, why not Anderson?” he says. “Justice delayed and justice denied in a botched-up case.”

Those convicted are: Keshub Mahindra, 85, then chairman, UCIL (Union Carbide India Ltd), and now chairman of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd; Vijay Gokhale, then managing director, UCIL; Kishore Kamdar, then vice-president; JN Mukund, then works manager; SP Choudhary, then production manager; KV Shetty, then plant superintendent; SI Quereshi, then production assistant. Mahindra, Gokhale and Kamdar are residents of Mumbai.  

The judgment has no word on Anderson, 89, then chairman of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), US, who was declared absconder in the case.

The accused have been held guilty under sections 304-A (causing death by negligence), 336, 337 and 338 (gross negligence), and 35 (common intention) of the India Penal Code.
They have also been fined under section 304-A (causing death by negligence), given imprisonment of three months and a fine of Rs250 under section 336, six months and Rs500 under section 337 and two years and Rs1,000 under section 338.

The sentences will run concurrently. Eyebrows have been raised at the quantum of fine that chief judicial magistrate Mohan P Tiwari of the trial court in Bhopal has imposed. A lawyer said the court could have awarded exemplary fine on the accused and the delinquent company. “There is no legal bar on awarding a hefty fine on the company and the accused. The CBI must challenge the judgment to raise the amount of fine,” he said.

During the limping trial, that showcases India’s snail-pace in the dispensation of justice in cases where influential persons are involved, the prosecuting agency, CBI, examined 178 witnesses and produced 3,008 documents in support of the charges, which were mellowed down by the Supreme Court in 1996.
CBI counsel C Sahay argued that the defective design of the plant and its poor maintenance resulted in the tragedy. He said the plant’s parent company in a survey of the factory in 1982 found serious safety and maintenance lapses on nearly 10 counts. But the counsel for UCC and UCIL disputed Sahay’s contention and said all safety measures at the plant were followed. He denied that the UCC team which visited the plant following the death of a worker in 1982 found fault with the factory.

The UCIL factory was set up in 1969, with 50.9% being owned by UCC and 49.1% by Indian investors, including public sector financial institutions.

During the investigation, it was found that UCC was to provide safety measures to store MIC as well as specify operating standards to UCIL. The Michigan-based Dow Chemical Co acquired UCC in 1999. Dow said all Bhopal gas liabilities have been settled in a $470 million out-of-court settlement between UCC and the government of India in 1989.