IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. __________ OF 2010

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

(From the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.11276/2009.)

IN THE MATTER OF:-

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN & 7 Ors.

PETITIONERS

VERSUS

OFFICE OF THE WELFARE COMMISSIONER & ANR.

. RESPONDENTS

PAPER BOOK

WITH

IA No. ___ of 2010: An application for condonation of delay of

_____ days of filing SLP.

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS: MS. ANITHA SHENOY

NEW DELHI
DATED: March ___, 2010
 INDEX

Serial No. Particulars. Page. No.

01. Office Report of Limitation.

02. Listing Pro forma
03. Checklist
04. Synopsis and List of Dates
05. True copy of the Impugned order and judgment
dated 30.11.2009 passed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition
No.11276/2009.

06. SLP with Affidavit

07. Annexure P1:
True copy of Supreme Court order dated
19.07.04 passed in I.A. Nos. 46-47 in C.A. Nos.
3187-88 of 1988.

08. Annexure P2:

True copy of the chart filed by the Union of
India in its affidavit dated 26.10.06 filed in
I.A.Nos. 48-49 of 2004 in C.A.Nos. 3187-88 of
1988.

09. Annexure P3:

True copy of the Supreme Court order dated
25.02.2008 in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 in I.A.
Nos.48-49 of 2004 in C.A. Nos.3187-88 of
1988.

10. Annexure P4:

True copy of the petition dated 28.08.2008 filed
by the Petitioners in the court of the Welfare
Commissioner, Bhopal.

11. Annexure P5:

True copy of the order dated 31.01.2009
passed by the learned Welfare
Commissioner, Bhopal.
12 Annexure P6:
True copy of the Writ Petition No. 11276 of
2009 filed by the Petitioners in the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh.

13 IA No. ______ 2010:

An application for condonation of delay of ____
days in filing SLP.
 LISTING PROFORMA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1. Nature of the matter Civil

2. Name(s) of Petitioner(s) / Appellant(s) Abdul Jabbar Khan
& Seven Others.
3. Name(s) of Respondent(s) Office of the
Welfare Commissioner
4. Number of case SLP(C) No._________/2010.
5. Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s) Anitha Shenoy
6. Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) -
7. Section dealing with the matter
8. Date of the Impugned Order/Judgment 30.11.2009
8A Name of the Honble Judges
Honble Mr. Dipak Misra, J. & Mr. R.K. Garg, J.
8B In Land Acquisition Matters:-
i) Notification / Govt. Order No. (u/s 4.6) NA
Dated issued by Centre/State of NA
ii) Exact purpose of acquisition & village involved NA
8C In Civil Matters:
i) Suit No. Name of Lower Court NA
Date of Judgment NA
8D In Writ Petition:-
Catchword of other similar matters NA
8E In case of Motor Vehicle Accident Matters
Vehicle No. NA
8F In service Matters
(i) Relevant service rule, if any NA
(ii) G.O./Circular Notification, NA
if applicable or in question

8G In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters NA

I.D. Reference /Award No, if applicable NA

9. Nature of urgency:
10. In case it is a Tax matter:-
a) Tax amount involved in the matter NA
b) Whether a reference/statement of the
case was called for or rejected NA
c) Whether similar tax matters of same parties
filed earlier (may be for earlier/other
Assessment year)? NA
 d) Exemption Notification/Circular No NA

11. Valuation of the matter NA

12. Classification of the matter
(please fill up the number and name of relevant
category with sub category as per the list circulated)

No. of Subject Category with full name

No. of sub-category with full name
13. Title of the Act involved (Centre /State)
The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration &
Processing of Claims) Act, 1985
14. a) Sub-classification (indicate section/
Article of the status)
b) Sub section involved
c) Title of the Rules involved
(Centre/State)
d) Sub-classification (indicate Rule/Sub-rule/State)

15. Point of law and question of law raised in the case

Whether victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy have a right
to compensation in the changed circumstances under
the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration & Processing
of Claims) Act, 1985 and their claims / issues arising of
these changed circumstances warrants consideration by
the courts?

16. Whether matter is not to be listed before any Honble Judge?

NA
Mention the name of the Honble Judge

17. Particulars of identical/similar cases, if any

a) Pending cases NA
b) Decided cases with citation NA
17A Was S.L.P. /Appeal/Writ filed against same impugned NA
Judgment / Order earlier? If yes, particulars

18. Whether the petition is against Interlocutory/final

order/decree in the case Final Order

19. If it is a fresh matter, please state the name of the High Court
and the Coram in the impugned Judgment / Order
 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at
Jabalpur order dated 30.11.2009. CORAM: Honble Mr.
Dipak Misra, J. & Mr. R.K. Gupta, J.
20. If the matter was already listed in this Court
a) When was it listed? NA
b) What was the coram? NA
c) What was the direction of the Court NA

21. Whether a date has already been fixed either by Court or on

being mentioned for the hearing of matter? If so,
please indicate the date fixed NA

22. Is there a caveator? If so, whether a notice

has been issued to him? NA

23. Whether date entered in the Computer? NA

24. If it is a criminal matter please state: NA

a) Whether accused has surrendered NA
b) Nature of Offence i.e. Convicted under Section with
Act NA
c) Sentenced awarded NA
d) Sentence already undergone by the accused NA
e) 24 e) (i)FIR/RC/etc NA
f) Date of Registration of FIR etc. NA
g) Name and place of the Police Station NA
(ii) Name and place of Trial Court NA
Case No. in Trial Court and Date of Judgment NA
iii) Name and Place of 1st Appellate Court NA
st
Case No. in 1 Appellate Court and date of
Judgment NA

Date: ___/__/2010
ANITHA SHENOY
Advocate for Petitioners
 SYNOPSIS

This Special Leave Petition raises an important question pertaining

to the claims of victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy that, whether, in
light of changed circumstances, the High Court and the Welfare
Commissioner were justified in not exercising their jurisdiction,
including suo motto, to review the findings and undo any injustice.
These changed circumstances have a crucial bearing on grant of
relief to the victims, non-redressal of which is resulting in serious
miscarriage of justice, violation of constitutional and legal rights of
thousands of victims.

The High Court as well as the Welfare Commissioner ought to

have acted in furtherance and in light of the observations made by
this Honble Court permitting review and the assurance that it will
leave no stone unturned in undoing any injustice done owing the
changed circumstances. This Honble Court held in Union Carbide
v. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 38 regarding the increase in
the total number of victims of the tragedy, that,
Para 30: If the total number of cases of death or of
permanent, total or partial, disabilities or of what may be called
catastrophic injuries is shown to be so large that the basic
assumptions underlying the settlement become wholly unrelated
to the realities, the element of justness of the determination and
of truth of its factual foundation would be seriously impaired. The
justness of the settlement is based on these assumptions of
truth.

Later this Honble Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India

(1990) 1 SCC 613 held that,
Para 165: ... A correct picture as to whether the amount of
compensation for which the claims have been settled is meager,
adequate or excessive will emerge only at the stage when the
claims have been processed and their aggregate is determined.
With regard to the duty of the Union of India this Honble Court in
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 has
held that the Union of India is bound by its commitment having
acted as Parens Patriae on behalf of the victims

The changed circumstances which have crucially impaired the

fundamental assumptions drawn by this Honble Court are many.
Foremost among them is the glaring reality that the original
estimates of dead and injured persons on the basis of which the
settlement figure was calculated is far below the actual, which is
five times the former. As per Union of India records, the total
number of claims filed was 10,01,723 of which 5,53,015 cases
were awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,442.11 Crores. The number of
claims of deaths registered was 22,149 of which 15,180 were
awarded.

Important issues, raised by the Petitioners before this Honble

Court and the courts below, arising from the changed
circumstances like, unjustness of compensation in the event of
aggravation of injury, delay in disbursement of compensation,
denial of interest on delayed compensation, review of wholesale
conversion of more than 10,044 death claim cases, arbitrary ban
on registration of death claim cases since 1997, etc. require
adjudication to provide relief and undo the injustice meted out to
the victims of the disaster whose suffering continues unabated.
These crucial issues need to be addressed and adjudicated upon
by the courts keeping in mind the object of the Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the scheme under
this act along with the role of parens patriae played by the Union of
India.

The Welfare Commissioner vested with suo motto jurisdiction

under the Bhopal Act declined to address these questions on the
ground that these questions have been settled by this Honble
Court. The High Court only quoted the findings of the Welfare
Commissioner and did not apply its independent mind in dismissing
these crucial issues in limine.
LIST OF DATES
02-03.12.1984 Bhopal gas leak disaster exposes residents of 36 of the 56
municipal wards of Bhopal to highly toxic gases, which
inflicted injuries in varying degrees to nearly two-thirds of the
citys population of 900,000 people ultimately causing over
20,000 deaths.

29.03.1985 Enactment of the The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster

(Processing of Claims) Act, 1985.

24.09.1985 Framing of the The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration

and Processing of Claims) Scheme 1985 and publication of
the same in the Gazette of India.

14/15.02.1989 The Bhopal Settlement was reached between Union of India

and Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), USA, under
the aegis of the Supreme Court of India for a sum of
470 million U.S. Dollars in C.A No.3187-88 of 1988.
The order approving the settlement is reported in
(1989) 1 SCC 674.

March, 1989 The Settlement was challenged by the Bhopal Gas Peedith
Mahila Udyog Sanghathan (BGPMUS), the Bhopal
Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti (BGPSSS)
and others vide Review Petition No. 229 of 1989 in
Civil Appeals Nos. 3187-88 of 1988 and vide Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 293 of 1989 before this Honble
Court, mainly on three grounds: (a) that the
Settlement sum was less than one-sixth of the claim
originally made by the Union of India before the
Bhopal District Court in January, 1986; (b) that the
Settlement did not disclose the number of
beneficiaries (c) that the Settlement quashed all
pending and future criminal cases against all the
accused in the case.
04.05.1989 Responding to the criticisms raised against the Settlement,
the Supreme Court issued a clarificatory order
[reported in (1989) 3 SCC 38] disclosing that the
Settlement was based on the assumption that the
disaster caused only 3000 deaths and inflicted injuries
in varying degree to 1,02,000 others. The justification
given by the Court was the urgency to provide relief to
the vast majority of the victims. In order to justify the
settlement amount, the Court took into consideration
the figures which were available and also certain
assumptions and on that basis observed that in those
circumstances it appears to be just. The basis of
calculations and assumptions drawn by this Honble
Court appears in paras 22, 24, 25 & 27 in (1989) 3
SCC 38 and is shown in tabular form given below.

S.No. CATEGORY RANGE OF COMPENSATION

AND AMOUNT ALLOCATED
1. Death Rs.1 lakh to Rs. 3 lakhs
(3000 cases) (Total Amount Allocated
= Rs.70 crores)
2. Permanent total or partial Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2 lakhs
disability (Total Amount Allocated
(30,000 cases) = Rs.250 crores)
3. Temporary total or partial Rs.25,000 to Rs.1 lakh
disability (Total Amount Allocated
(20,000 cases) = Rs.100 crores)
4. Injuries of utmost severity Rs.4 lakhs (Total Amount
(2000 cases) Allocated = Rs.80 crores)
5. Minor injuries Rs.20,000/- (Total Amount
(50,000 cases) Allocated = Rs.100 crores)
6. Loss of personal Rs.15,000/- (Total Amount
belongings (50,000 cases) Allocated = Rs.75 crores)
7. Loss of livestock Rs.10,000/- (Total Amount
(50,000 cases) Allocated = Rs.50 crores)
8. Specialised Medical (Total Amount Allocated
Treatment =Rs.25 crores)

However this Honble Court added that,

(1989) 3 SCC 38: Para 37
A settlement has been recorded upon material and
in circumstances which persuaded the court that it
was a just settlement. This is not to say that this Court
will shut out any important material and compelling
circumstances which might impose a duty on it to
exercise the powers of review. Like all other human
22.12.1989 This Honble Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India
reported in (1990) 1 SCC 613, where constitutional
validity of Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of
Claims) Act, 1985 was challenged observed on the
object and purpose of the Act that,
Para 128.
The Act was conceived on the noble promise of giving
relief and succour to the dumb, pale, meek and
impoverished victims of a tragic industrial gas leak
disaster, a concomitant evil in this industrial age of
technological advancement and development. The Act
had kindled high hopes in the hearts of the weak and
worn, wary and forlorn. The Act generated hope of
humanity. The implementation of the Act must be with
justice...

Further this Honble Court defined the role of the Union of

India in the Act and the Scheme as parens patriae. Defining
this jurisdiction of parens patriae the Supreme Court
observed that:
Para 35:
... Parens patriae jurisdiction, it has been explained, is
the right of the sovereign and imposes a duty on
sovereign, in public interest, to protect persons under
disability who have no rightful protector.

(Ranganathan, J.) Para 165:

... A correct picture as to whether the amount of
compensation for which the claims have been settled
is meager, adequate or excessive will emerge only at
the stage when the claims have been processed and
their aggregate is determined.
03.10.1991 The Supreme Court dismissed the review and writ petitions
filed against the Settlement as far as the civil liability
of UCC was concerned in its order reported in (1991)
4 SCC 584. However, it revoked the quashing of
criminal cases. On the issue of future claims this
Honble Court held that,
(1991) 4 SCC 584: Para 135
The likelihood of future complications though they
may mean mere assessment or evaluation of mere
chances are also put into the scales in quantifying
damages. This principle may, as rightly pointed out by
Sri Nariman, take care of the victims who have
manifested symptoms. But what about those who are
presently wholly asymptomatic and have no material
to support a present claim? Who will provide them
surveillance costs and if at some day in the future
they develop any dreaded symptoms, who will provide
them with compensation? Even if the award is an
once and for all determination, these aspects must
be taken into account.

With respect to the ground of inadequacy of the settlement

fund owing to exclusion of a large number of claims
this Honble Court gave the assurance that,
(1991) 4 SCC 584: Para 198:
After a careful thought, it appears to us that while it
may not be wise or proper to deprive the victims of the
benefit of the settlement, it is, however, necessary to
ensure that in the perhaps unlikely event of the
settlement fund being found inadequate to meet the
compensation determined in respect of all the present
claimants, those persons who may have their claims
determined after the fund is exhausted are not left to
fend for themselves. But, such a contingency may not
arise having regard to the size of the settlement fund.
If it should arise, the reasonable way to protect the
interests of the victims is to hold that the Union of
India, as a welfare State and in the circumstances in
which the settlement was made, should not be found
wanting in making good the deficiency, if any. We
hold and declare accordingly.

Concluding this Honble Court held that,

19.07.2004 The Supreme Court formally acknowledged the actual
magnitude of the disaster in terms of the number of
dead and injured in I.A. Nos. 46-47 in C.As. Nos.
3187-3188 of 1988. Vide the said order the learned
Welfare Commissioner was directed to disburse the
remaining settlement fund on a pro-rata basis to all
those who had been awarded compensation after
taking into account the remaining unsettled claims. In
the said order, it was held that,
Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the amount available may fall short to
satisfy the claims of all persons fully and in that regard,
she would make necessary application. It is open for
her to do so.
A true copy of the said order dated 19.07.04 is hereto
marked and annexed as ANNEXURE P1.

14.09.2004 Since the Supreme Court had ipso facto recognized that the
magnitude of the Bhopal disaster was FIVE times
greater than was assumed at the time of the
Settlement, the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog
Sanghathan (hereinafter referred to as BGPMUS) &
the Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samit
(hereinafter referred to as BGPSSS) filed I.A.Nos.
48-49 of 2004 in Civil Appeals Nos. 3187-3186 of
1988 in the Supreme Court.
26.10.2006 Union of India in an affidavit filed in I.A.Nos. 48-49 of 2004 in
C.A. Nos. 3187-88 of 1988 disclosed the position of
settlement of claim cases as on 31.07.2006 wherein it
was admitted that the total number of gas victims who
were awarded compensation was,
a) Under category 04 (death) - 15,327 cases
b) Under category 01 (injury) - 5,58,125 cases
A true copy of the chart filed by the UOI in the said affidavit
dated 26.10.2006 is hereto marked and annexed as
ANNEXURE P2.

04.05.2007 The Supreme Court disposed of I.A. Nos. 48-49 of 2004 in

C.A. Nos. 3187-88 of 1988 by judgment reported in
(2007) 9 SCC 707, after referring to the directions
given in various judgments felt that the Welfare
Commissioner, Bhopal is competent to adjudicate
these issues.

13.10.2007 On behalf of all gas-victims and particularly the 1,01,000

gas-victims, who had made individual appeals,
BGPMUS & BGPSSS filed I.A. Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 in
I.A. Nos.48-49 of 2004 seeking clarification &
modification of the Order of Supreme Court dated
04.05.2007 in I.A. Nos.48-49 of 2004 in C.A.
Nos.3187-88 of 1988.

25.02.2008 The Supreme Court disposed of I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 in I.A.

Nos.48-49 of 2004 in C.A. Nos.3187-88 of 1988 as
withdrawn after BGPMUS & BGPSSS withdrew their
applications primarily to first seek clarifications from
the learned Welfare Commissioner in accordance with
the observations made by the Supreme Court vide
order dated 04.05.2007 for the purposes of
determination of facts. A true copy of the said order
dated 25.02.2008 is hereto marked and annexed as
ANNEXURE P3.
28.08.2008 Nine gas-victims, who were members of BGPMUS &
BGPSSS, filed a joint application before the Court of
the learned Welfare Commissioner, Bhopal, for
purpose of determination of issues regarding the
magnitude and gravity of the disaster. A true copy of
the petition dated 28.08.2008 filed by the Petitioners
in the court of the learned Welfare Commissioner,
Bhopal is hereto marked and annexed as
ANNEXURE P4.

31.01.2009 The Court of the learned Welfare Commissioner dismissed

the application filed by the said Petitioners
___________________. A true copy of the said order
dated 31.01.2009 is hereto marked and annexed as
ANNEXURE P5.

28.10.2009 The Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 11276 of 2009 before
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
against the order dated 31.01.09 of the learned
Welfare Commissioner. A true copy of the Writ
Petition No. 11276 of 2009 is hereto marked and
annexed as ANNEXURE P6.

30.11.2009 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at

Jabalpur dismissed in limine W.P. No. 11276/2009
filed by the Petitioners after quoting the Welfare
Commissioners order and without going into the
questions raised by the Petitioners.

__.03.2010 Hence, the present SLP.

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

W.P.No. 11276 of 2009

Abdul Jabbar Khan, Convenor, Bhopal Gas

Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & 7 Ors. .. Petitioner

Versus

Office of the Welfare Commissioner & Anr. ..Respondents

For the petitioners: Mr. Aagney Sail and Akash

Choudhary, Advocates

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Present: Honble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra
Honble Mr. Justice R.K. Gupta
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(30.11.2009)

As per Dipak Misra, J:

The Convenor and the Members of Bhopal Gas Peedith

mahila Udyog Sangathan, have preferred this public interest
litigation seeking directions to respondents to provide adequate
compensation as per the terms of the Bhopal Settlement on
examination of the claim petitions pertaining to death claims that
have been rejected/converted to injury claims, seeking upgradation
of injury claims.

2. The specific reliefs which the petitioners seek in the present

public interest litigation are as follows:-
(a) Pass an Order directing the Office of
the Welfare Commissioner to permit the
Petitioners, or any other competent body,
such as the Advisory Committee on
Medical Research that was set up by the
Honble Supreme Court vide Order dated
17.8.2004 in W.P.(C) No,50 of 1998, to
re-examine the medical documentation &
categorisation records and to review the
basis on which 6812 death-claim (04-
Category) cases were rejected as
unrelated to the Bhopal disaster.

(b) Pass an Order directing the Office of

the Welfare Commissioner to permit the
Petitioners, or any other competent
body, such as the Advisory Committee
on Medical Research that was set up by
the Honble Supreme Court vide Order
dated 17.8.2004 in W.P.(C) No,50 of
1998, to re-examine the medical
documentation & categorisation records
and to review basis on which 10,044
death-claim (04-Category) cases were
downgraded to injury cases (effectively
as 01-Category) and awarded
compensation for INJURY and not for
death.

(c) Pass an Order declaring that all gas

victims, who are forced to seek medical
treatment for gas-related ailments even
twenty-five years after the disaster, are
permanently injured and that their
compensation should be enhanced
accordingly.

(d) Pass an order giving liberty to the

petitioners to file necessary interlocutory
application, writ or any other appropriate
petition, at a later stage, to challenge the
Order of this Hon'ble Court date
16.04.2004 in MCC No.490 of 2004
(Union of India vs. Smt.Sumitra Saini),
which upheld the denial of interest
payment to the gas-victims, after
collecting the case file and relevant
documents.

(e) Pass an Order directing the Office of

the Welfare Commissioner to disclose
the methodology by which the
Settlement Fund of 465 million U.S.
Dollars, which was earmarked as
compensation to 1,05,000 gas-victims as
per the terms of the Bhopal Settlement,
was awarded as compensation to
574,367 gas-victims, i.e., to Five times
 more the number of beneficiaries than
was determined at the time of the
Settlement;

(f) Pass an order to award compensation

to the 5,74,367 gas-victims at the value
of the Rupee vis--vis the US Dollar as
prevalent on the date of the Bhopal
Settlement..

3. In respect of the claims for re-examination of medical documents

and categorization of records and to review 6812 death claims
(Category-A) rejected being unrelated to Bhopal disaster, we
observe from the order dated 31.1.2009 passed by the learned
Welfare Commissioner, Bhopal Gas Victims that the issue has
been extensively dealt with in paragraphs 13, 17 and 18:
13. As held in 1991 4 SCC 584, the
petitioners seriously assailed the
correctness of the guidelines for medical
evaluation and also the results of the
actual operational process of evaluation
based thereon. The Honble Supreme
Court held that particular care has gone
into the prescription of the medical
documentation tests and the formulation
of the results for purposes of evaluation
and categorization.
xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

17. Now coming to the maintainability of

the present petition, on May 4, 2007,
Supreme Court dismissed two
interlocutory applications filed by
BGPMUS and BGPSSS (the
petitioners before me). These I.A.Nos.
48-49 filed in two disposed of Civil
Appeal Nos. 3187-3188 of 1988 were for
issuing appropriate Writ, direction or
Order to re-examine the inadequacy of
Bhopal Gas Settlement, to direct
Government of India to compensate the
settlement fund five times the initial fund;
to Order the Reserve Bank of India to
provide detailed information on
management and utilization of the
settlement fund by rendering faithful
account relating to withdrawal of funds
by Welfare Commissioner; to command
Welfare Commissioner, Bhopal to
provide complete information regarding
process of identification and
categorization of gas victims and the
manner of disbursement of
compensation to them; to rectify the
methodology in the process of
identification and categorization of gas
victims and the manner of disbursement
of compensation of amounts by
enhancing compensation appropriately.

18. Dismissing I.A.Nos. 48-49 the

Supreme Court observed that no case
has been made out to issue any
directions; since the Act has been
enacted, a Scheme has been framed
under the Act and the Procedure has
been laid down, which has to be
constitutional and intra vires, which
protect the rights of the victims.
The Court held Any person
lodging a claim is required to make an
application and a duty is cast on the
Authority to take an appropriate decision
on the basis of the Scheme and
Guidelines. Such adjudication has been
held quasi-judicial in nature subject to
appeal, revision and judicial review
before the High Court under Articles 226
& 227 and even thereafter before this
Court under the Article 136 of the
Constitution. Since the consideration of
claim and adjudication thereof requires
determination of facts, the Court ruled
that it must be done in accordance with
the Scheme, Guidelines and Procedure
under the Act and not in any other
manner. So far as compensation is
concerned, this Court has held that it
should be in Indian currency and even
under the Scheme, such amount is fixed
in Indian currency and even under the
Scheme, such amount is fixed in Indian
Rupees. We, therefore, see no
grievance now can be made on that
issue.
4. Regarding methodology of settlement of fund, the said aspect
has also been extensively dealt with by the learned Commissioner
after taking into consideration the conditions laid down by the Apex
Court in Union Carbide India Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 537. The learned Commissioner has
observed as follows:
16..and the court accepted the
submission that while withdrawing funds the
rupee deposit and the amount representing
accrued interest, should be utilized and
progressively exhausted so that the benefit
of any prospect of higher exchange rate of
dollar may be preserved, as this would
protect the interests of the victims in the
event of increase in the exchange rate of
the dollar. From above Para (I) it would
clearly appear that the fund is to be used for
making payment towards compensation as
determined. The process of determination
was to be undertaken by us. The Apex
Court never said that amount of
compensation was to be determined in
US$. In fact, the Apex Court in Para 9v) to
maintain the position of the fund directed
that regard be had to the conversion rate.
Thus, the question of making payment in
dollar does not arise.

5. The contentions put forth by the petitioners in present public

interest litigation having being exhaustively dealt with by the
learned Commissioner after taking into consideration the orders of
the Apex Court from time to time, we are of the considered opinion
that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this public interest
litigation and accordingly the same stands dismissed in limine.

(Dipak Misra) (R.K. Gupta)

JUDGE JUDGE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. __________ OF 2010

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

(From the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.11276/2009.)

BETWEEN
POSITION OF THE PARTIES

Before Ld. Before Before this

Commissioner High Court, Honble
Division Court
Bench

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN Petitioner No. 1 Petitioner No. 1 Petitioner No. 1

Convenor, Bhopal Gas Peedith
Mahila Udyog Sangathan,
S/o Lt. Abdul Sattar,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o 51, Rajendar Nagar,
Bhopal 462010, M.P.
HAMIDA BI Petitioner No. 2 Petitioner No. 2 Petitioner No. 2
Member, Bhopal Gas Peedith
Mahila Udyog Sangathan,
W/o Lt. Mohd. Idris,
Aged about 57 years,
R/o 51, Rajendar Nagar,
Bhopal 462010, M.P.
MOHINI DEVI Petitioner No. 3 Petitioner No. 3 Petitioner No. 3
Member, Bhopal Gas Peedith
Mahila Udyog Sangathan,
W/o Puran Lal,
Aged about 51 years,
R/o 51, Rajendar Nagar,
Bhopal 462010, M.P.
MOHAMED IDRIS Petitioner No. 4 Since Since Deceased
Member, Bhopal Gas Peedith Deceased
Mahila Udyog Sangathan,
R/o 51, Rajendar Nagar,
Bhopal 462010, M.P.
RAISA BI Petitioner No. 5 Petitioner No. 4 Petitioner No. 4
Member, Bhopal Gas Peedith
Mahila Udyog Sangathan,
W/o Lt. Naseer Khan,
Aged about 46 years,
R/o 51, Rajendar Nagar,
Bhopal 462010, M.P.
SHAZIA Petitioner No. 6 Petitioner No. 5 Petitioner No. 5
Member, Bhopal Gas Peedith
Mahila Udyog Sangathan,
D/o Shahnawaz Khan,
Aged about 25 years,
R/o 51, Rajendar Nagar,
Bhopal 462010, M.P.
MOHAMED SALIM Petitioner No. 7 Petitioner No. 6 Petitioner No. 6
Member, Bhopal Gas Peedith
Mahila Udyog Sangathan,
S/o Lt. Shakhur Ullah Khan,
Aged about 51 years,
R/o 51, Rajendar Nagar,
Bhopal 462010, M.P.
PREM NARAYAN VARMA Petitioner No. 8 Petitioner No. 7 Petitioner No. 7
Member, Bhopal Gas Peedith
Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti,
S/o Hamant Singh Varma,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o A-108, Padmanabh Nagar,
New Subash Nagar,
Bhopal 462023, M.P.
M.K. BALAN Petitioner No. 9 Petitioner No. 8 Petitioner No. 8
Member, Bhopal Gas Peedith
Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti,
S/o Keshav Balan, Aged 63 years,
R/o A-108, Padmanabh Nagar,
New Subash Nagar,
Bhopal 462023, M.P.

VERSUS
OFFICE OF THE WELFARE Respondent Contesting
COMMISSIONER, No. 1 Respond
Through the Assistant Welfare ent No. 1
Commissioner,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Bhavan,
Opposite Old Vidhan Sabha,
Bhopal, M.P.

UNION OF INDIA, Respondent Contesting

Through its Secretary, No. 2 Respond
Ministry of Chemical & Fertilisers, ent No. 2
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110001

TO
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA:
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITONER
ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. This Special Leave Petition is filed against the order and the
judgment dated 30.11.2009 of a Division Bench of Honble
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, principal seat at Jabalpur in
Writ Petition No. 11276 of 2009.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:
That the present Petition involves substantial questions of
law of general importance inter alia including the following
question:

a) Whether the High Court and the Welfare

Commissioner were justified in rejecting the prayers
sought for by the Petitioners which were in the interest
of victims of Bhopal Gas Tragedy?

b) Whether the High Court and the Welfare

Commissioner were justified in observing that the
issues raised in the petition stood covered by the
judgments of this Honble Court when the correct fact is
otherwise: the directions given by this Honble Court
permit review of the entire process of grant of
compensation / settlement in the changed
circumstances?

c) Whether the unjustness of compensation in the

event of aggravation of injury, delay in disbursement of
compensation, denial of interest on compensation for
 the delay award of interest/compensation for the
delay, review of wholesale conversion of death claims
to injury claims the death claim cases etc. were not the
important issues which ought to have been decided by
the Welfare Commissioner and by the High Court?

d) Whether the Welfare Commissioner as well as

the High Court did not commit an error by not noticing
that this Honble Court had extended its promise to the
victims for doing justice and that promise extends as
long as the impacts of injury in the said disaster
continues?

e) Whether the Welfare Commissioner and the High

Court ought not to have decided the issues raised by
the Petitioners on the basis of Constitutional mandate
in particular Article 21 of the Constitution and the
parens patriae doctrine?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):

The Petitioners state that no other petition seeking leave to
appeal has been filed by them against the impugned order.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE- 6:

Annexures P to P produced along with the SLP are true and
correct copies of the pleadings / documents which form part
of the record of the case in the Court below against whose
order leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS:
The Petitioners prefer this petition under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India for Special Leave to appeal inter alia on
the following grounds:
5.1 Because the settlement was based on the
circumstances which this Honble Court took into
consideration to arrive at the finding that it was a just
settlement. This Honble Court however, had put a word
of caution that the entire aim behind the exercise is that
there should not be miscarriage of justice and violation
of legal and constitutional rights of the persons affected
and that if such an eventuality arises, this Honble Court
will review its findings and will endeavour to undo any
such injustice (vide Union Carbide Corporation Vs
Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 38).

5.2 Because, the judgments given by this Honble

Court regarding the Bhopal case recognized the duty of
the State parens patriae doctrine and that this
human tragedy has to be looked at from the
constitutional perspective including Article 21 of the
Constitution. This Honble Court also recognized that, in
a matter of this nature the approach of granting relief
cannot be static, it has to be modified or moulded in the
changed circumstances brought to the knowledge of
this Court. It is with this idea that the Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 (hereinafter
referred to as Bhopal Act) was enacted, in any case
the provisions of this Act have to be interpreted in
harmony with the directions given by this Honble Court.
It is the reason why, the Welfare Commissioner has
been given suo motto powers, namely, that not only the
Welfare Commissioner himself can take up the issues
where he discovers violation of legal/constitutional
rights but, even on the application moved by a third
party. The exercise of powers of suo motto have been
settled by this Honble Court.

5.3 Because the issues which were raised by the

Petitioners before the Welfare Commissioner were of
fundamental importance, the decision on which would
have given further cause of action to the affected
persons to seek remedy/relief under the provisions of
the Bhopal Act. The determination of these questions
was not dependent on an individual raising those
questions. They could have been raised collectively as
they represented collective legal and constitutional
rights of a class of affected people. The Welfare
Commissioner could have entertained these issues
either within its suo motto jurisdiction or on the basis of
the judgments of this Honble Court in the Bhopal Case.
The Welfare Commissioner however, declined to
address these questions on a totally untenable ground
that these questions have been settled by this Honble
Court. The High Court only quoted the findings of the
Welfare Commissioner and did not apply its
independent mind.

5.4 Because, one of the issues regarding which relief

was sought by the Petitioners was regarding a group of
affected people who had received compensation on
certain basis looking at the injury/harm they sustained
but during the course of time the said injury/harm
aggravated resulting in permanent disability/injury.
What should be the methodology for looking into the
enhancement of their claims was an important
question. The judgments of this Honble Court have
accepted that the impacts of the lethal gas were so
great that their after-effects could not be known
immediately. This Honble Court had also emphasized
on the grant of just compensation. A compensation
which was just at a particular point of time became
unjust with the passage of time where the injury got
aggravated because of the impact of the lethal gas. The
remedy in this situation was available only within the
provisions of the Bhopal Act and if the provisions of the
Bhopal Act were deficient then, under Article 226 of the
Constitution and Article 32 to this Honble Court. This
was the assurance given by this Honble Court to the
people in Krishna Mohan Shukla v. Union of India,
(2000) 2 SCC 690.

5.5 Because the amount which was covered by the

settlement had proceeded on the assumption that the
total number of victims were 1,05,000. However, this
number increased to more than five times and the
official figure of the Government of India is that
5,73,452 people are affected. The actual number of
affected people is many times more. Instead of
enhancing the compensation amount which should
have been five times the initial amount, the settlement
amount of Rs. 750 crores was distributed amongst
5,74,367 lakh people in a manner which is unjust and
unfair. In cases of death claim, the Welfare
Commissioner has awarded only Rs. 1 lakh in
maximum cases when they are entitled to a maximum
compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. The total number of death
cases which have been rejected is as many as 10,044.
The injured persons have been granted only Rs.
25,000, that too after a prolonged period of more than a
decade. When the circumstances have substantially
changed there was no reason not to review/modify the
settlement amount. This was not only required but is
the mandate of the judgments given by this Honble
Court.

5.6 Because the argument with regard to payment of

interest and to disburse the compensation amount on
the basis of exchange rate of dollar on the day when
the amount was disbursed was not adverted to either
by the Welfare Commissioner or by the High Court. To
illustrate, if the claim was filed in the year 1991 and the
amount of Rs. 25,000/- was disbursed in the year 1999
there was no reason not to give that said amount on the
basis of exchange rate of dollars. In any case the delay
resulted in violation of rights of the affected people
under Article 21 of the Constitution and therefore, under
the public law remedy they could have asked for
payment of further compensation. The victims had
suffered during this period because on one hand, the
money was not available and on the other, the injury
caused was affecting their health.

5.7 Because the High Court as well as the Welfare

Commissioner did not consider the very crucial issue
which was raised by the Petitioners namely that 10,044
claim cases of death were rejected. The State has, in
fact, arbitrarily stopped registering the claim cases of
death, which means that, even if a person dies because
he was affected by the lethal gas, his case will not be
registered as a death claim case and he will not be
entitled to compensation on that basis. The massive
number of deaths which took place could not be said to
be natural deaths. The petitioners have analyzed the
 facts and the following factors emerge which call for a
reopening of these death cases so that relief can be
granted to the affected families of the deceased victims.
-

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

No interim relief is sought.

7. MAIN PRAYER :
It is therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this Honble
Court may be pleased to:-

(a)Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and

order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of
the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, principal seat
at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 11276 of 2009.

(b)Pass any such other or further orders which this Honble

Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

No interim relief is sought

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS AS

IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL.

Place: New Delhi

Drawn by: Aagney Sail, Advocate
Settled by: Sanjay Parikh, Advocate

Drawn on: March , 2009

Filed on: March , 2009
(Ms. ANITHA SHENOY)
 Advocate for Petitioners
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2010
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF :-

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN & 7 Ors.

PETITIONERS

VERSUS

OFFICE OF THE WELFARE COMMISSIONER & ANR.

. RESPONDENTS

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings
before the Court whose order is challenged and the other documents
relied upon in those documents. No additional facts, documents or
grounds have been taken or relied upon in this Special Leave Petition. It
is further certified that the copies of the documents / annexures attached
to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of
law raised in the petition or to make the grounds urged in the Special
Leave Petition for consideration of this Honble Court. This certificate is
given on the basis of the instructions given by the petitioners / person
authorized by the petitioners whose affidavit is filed in support of the
Special Leave Petition.
Filed By:

(Ms. ANITHA SHENOY)

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

New Delhi
Dated: ___.03.2010
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2010
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF :-

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN & 7 Ors.

PETITIONERS
VERSUS
OFFICE OF THE WELFARE COMMISSIONER & ANR.
. RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT

I, Abdul Jabbar Khan, S/o Late Shri Abdul Sattar, aged about 52
years, residing at 51, Rajendra Nagar, Bhopal 462010 do hereby
affirm and state as follows:
1. I am the Petitioner No. 1 and the Convenor of Bhopal Gas
Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan (BGPMUS) in the above
Special Leave Petition. I am aware of the facts and as such I
am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I state that the contents of the Special Leave Petition to
appeal in paragraphs 1 to 8 at pages to are true to my
information received from the records and legal advice
received and believed by me to be correct. I say that the
facts contained in the form of List of Dates at pages to are
true and correct. I say that the contents of the other IAs
are true and correct.
3. That the Annexures P1 to at pages to are true and
correct copies of the respective originals.
4. I say that the facts stated in this Affidavit are true and correct,
no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
 Verified at New Delhi on 16th day of February, 2010.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this __ day of February, 2009 that
the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to
my knowledge and that nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. ______ of 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______ OF 2010
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN & 7 Ors.
PETITIONERS

VERSUS

OFFICE OF THE WELFARE COMMISSIONER & ANR.

. RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF _____

DAYS IN FILING SLP

TO
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS LORDSHIPS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT ABOVE

NAMED.

MOST RESPECTIVELY SHOWETH:-

1. The Petitioners above named are filing the present petition

for seeking Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment
and order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of
the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, principal seat at
Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 11276 of 2009.
 2. That the contents of the above Petition are not being
repeated herein in the interests of brevity. That the
Petitioners seek leave to refer and rely on the above Petition
at the time of hearing of this application.

3. That the Petitioners could not file this Special Leave Petition
earlier as they have been collecting information about death
claim cases rejected in the court of Welfare Commissioner
and also by the High Court. In addition to this, the Petitioners
have also been pursuing other cases pending in various
courts including this Honble Court pertaining to the Bhopal
Gas Tragedy including the criminal case ongoing in Bhopal.
These have been consuming a lot of time, in particular the
ongoing case before this Honble Court wherein the Welfare
Commissioner has moved an application seeking directions
to close down the Office of the Welfare Commissioner.

4. Therefore it is prayed that the delay in filing the Special

Leave Petition against the judgment and order dated
30.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, principal seat at Jabalpur in Writ
Petition No. 11276 of 2009 may please be condoned and the
Special Leave Petition may be entertained, in the interest of
justice and equity.

5. That the present application is bonafide and is made in the

interest of justice.
PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is Most

Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
 a) Condone the delay of _____ days in filing of the SLP
against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2009
passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, principal seat at Jabalpur in Writ
Petitionl No. 11276 of 2009.
b) Pass any such further order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances stated herein above.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS

HEREIN AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Filed By:

(Ms. Anitha Shenoy)

Advocate for Petitioners
Place: New Delhi.
FILED ON: .03.2010