~ National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi ~

CASE ANALYSIS

CASE: CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

VISHAKHA RAJGARHIA MRS. MITA PODDAR

SEMESTER VII A FACULTY OF LAW

ROLL NO. 417

1|Page
~ CASE ANALYSIS ON CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA~
 ~ National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi ~

S.NO. PARTICULARS DATA

1 NAME OF THE CASE Charan Lal Sahu v. Union Of India And Ors.

2 CITATION 1990 AIR 1480, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 597

3 ARTICLES Article 14, 19, 21, 39, 39A

4 PETITIONER Charan Lal Sahu

5 RESPONDENT Union of India

6 HONBLE JUDGE C.J. Sabyasachi Mukharji, K.N. Singh, A.M. Ahmadi,

K.N. Saikia, S. Rangnathan

[I.] FACTS OF THE CASE:

BACKGROUND:

Union Carbide (India) Limited (UCIL), which was a subsidiary of the New York, based Union
Carbide Corporation (UCC) owned a plant in Bhopal to manufacture pesticides. A highly toxic
gas, Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) was used in the process and there was a massive leak from the
storage tank on the night between 2nd and 3rd December 1984, which resulted in death of
approximately 3000 people and injuries to thousands of others.

FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE:

The tragedy was followed by large number of suits being filed against the companies in both
India and the United States. With regard to this, the Government took a major step by enacting
the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 with the object to confer
powers on the Central Government to assure that claims arising out of, or connected with, the
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster are dealt with speedily, effectively, equitably and to the best
advantage of the claimants and for matters incidental thereto.1 Section 3 of the Act empowered

1
Preamble of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster ( Processing of Claims) Act, 1985
2|Page
~ CASE ANALYSIS ON CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA~
 ~ National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi ~

the Central Government to file suits on behalf of the victims exclusively; hence, taking away the
rights of affected to file suits on their own. Though it was specifically mentioned that in case of
suits that were already filed before the enactment of the aforesaid Act, the Central Government
shall represent the victims or act in addition to them with the permission of the Court. Hence, the
present petition.

[II.] ISSUE(S):

Whether or not the Act was in accordance with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
Whether or not the Act was in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice?
Whether or not the Central Government is legislatively competent to destroy/
demand the citizens to surrender their rights in guise of giving aid?

[III.] CONTENTIONS:

A. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

Contentions by petitioners:
1. They contended that the Act infringed on their individual rights to legal remedy against the
UCC and UCIL for the consequences of carrying out dangerous and hazardous activities in
India.
2. Further, It was argued that the one could not take away the right of a person, the liberty of a
person, to institute proceedings for his own benefit and for his protection.2 Sections 3,4 and
11 of the aforesaid Act were contented to be in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution because the procedure that was established under these Sections deprived the
just and legitimate rights of the victims to assert and obtain their just dues and therefore such
rights cannot be destroyed because under law, victims have a right to ventilate their rights.
3. Another argument in this regard was that it has been asserted by the Government that the
Act was passed pursuant to Entry 13 of the List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
It was therefore submitted that to the extent it was a law relating to civil procedure, it sets up

2
Para. 33
3|Page
~ CASE ANALYSIS ON CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA~
 ~ National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi ~

a different procedure for the Bhopal gas victims and denies to them equality before law,
violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Attention was also drawn to the provisions of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in support of their argument.
Contentions by Respondents:
1. They argued that there were various reasons to enact the Act and some of them were- the
plight of the impoverished, the urgency of the victims need, the presence of the foreign
contingency lawyers, the procedure of settlement in USA in mass action, the strength of the
foreign multinationals, the nature of injuries and damages.
2. Further, the Government that the Preamble to the Constitution of India, read with the
Directive Principles, Articles 38, 39 and 39A of enjoins the State to take up responsibility.
The taking up of this responsibility has been derived directly from the doctrine of parens
patriae.
3. Further it was ruled that the Act in question had been passed in recognition of the right of the
sovereign to act as a parens patriae. The judges ruled that it is necessary for the State to
ensure the Fundamental Rights in conjunction with the Directive Principles of State Policy to
effectively discharge its obligations and for this purpose if necessary, to deprive some rights
and privileges of the individual victims or their heirs to protect their rights better and secure
these further.
Hence the Court ruled that the Act was constitutional and not infringing on the
Fundamental Rights of the victims under Articles 14, 19 and 21.

B. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE?

Contentions by petitioners:
1. Petitioners contended that being a joint tort feasor, the Union on India had any locus standi
to compromise on behalf of the victims as it itself had permitted the establishment of such
factories without necessary safeguards.
2. Further, the petitioners contended that they were not given any right to be heard as the
Central Government took control to represent all the victims together. Even by doing so they

4|Page
~ CASE ANALYSIS ON CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA~
 ~ National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi ~

could have got their say if the Court notified them about the due proceedings, settlement
agreement through newspapers, television, radio or any other adequate sources.
Contentions by Respondents:
1. On the other hand, Respondents, that it only represented the victims as a party and did not
adjudicate between the victims and the UCC and hence the rights of the victims were
adjudicated by the Court only. It was later stated that such a representation of the victims by
the Government cannot be considered to be bad anywhere and hence there was no scope of
violation of any principle of natural justice.
2. They further said that the Government contended that it was acting on behalf of the victims
because the Doctrine of Necessity applied in the present case. The Court agreed with the
Attorney General and referring to Halsburys Laws of England, in which it is stated that,
even if all the members of a tribunal competent to determine a matter were subject to
disqualification, they might be authorized and obliged to hear that matter, by virtue of the
operation of the common law doctrine of necessity ruled that even if the Central
Government might somewhere be liable in a case of this nature, it would be proper that it
should be able and authorized to represent the victims because only the Government is
capable of representing the victims (has locus standi) in such a peculiar case and the doctrine
of necessity would apply and the principles of natural justice are not violated.
Finally, the Court ruled that some say was actually given to the victims by Section 4 of the
aforesaid Act to represent themselves before the Court before it comes to any conclusion in
respect of any settlement. It was because of the mass tort action and the magnitude and
nature of this case that it was near to impossible to hear each and every concerned.

C. WHETHER OR NOT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS LEGISLATIVELY COMPETENT TO

DESTROY/ DEMAND THE CITIZENS TO SURRENDER THEIR RIGHTS IN GUISE OF GIVING AID?

1. The petitioners contended that it is not permissible for the State to grant legal aid at the cost
of destroying rights that in here in citizens or by demanding the rights of the citizens to the
State. On interpretation of the Act it was noticed that Sections 3 and 4 gave exclusive power
to the Government to represent the victims and hence there is deprivation of victims right to
sue for the wrongs done to them which is uncanalised and unguided and the expression due
5|Page
~ CASE ANALYSIS ON CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA~
 ~ National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi ~

regard in Section 4 of the Act does not imply consent and hence it violates the rights of the
victims.
2. In response, the Central Governments argument was that the Act was passed to give effect
to the Directive Principles as enshrined under Article 39A of the Constitution of India. The
Court ruled that the Central Government is legislatively competent in enacting such
provisions taking DPSP under Article 39 as a feasible defense for such competency.

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of the Act under
which the Indian government gave itself the exclusive right to represent all Bhopal victims in
civil litigation against Carbide. The court acknowledged that the Bhopal act entitled the victims
to notice and an opportunity to be heard on any proposed settlement and the settlement in the
February 1989 failed to give any such notice. Nevertheless the court concluded that in the special
facts and circumstances of the case a post decisional hearing would not be in the ultimate
interest of justice. The Court noted that the hearings to be held during the review of the
settlement afforded sufficient opportunity to the victims and rationalized its view by declaring
that to do a great right after all it is permissible sometimes to do a little wrong.

CASE COMMENT:

Who is to blame here? Many years after the Bhopal Gas leak, the worst industrial catastrophe in
history, it remains unclear who must bear the legal responsibility. Certainly there is plenty of
blame to go around and the recipients include Union Carbide, UCIL and the governments of
India and Madhya Pradesh. The role of the India government in the Bhopal disaster was that of
an actor in many parts. The government was keen that transnational corporations such as carbide
set up shops in India, in the hope of creating jobs and drawing new technology and industry into
this rapidly developing country.

The Government was also responsible for overseeing the construction and management of the
carbide plant ensuring that applicable health and safety standards were met. Then with the
passage of the Bhopal Act the government named itself as the sole plaintiff in all litigation,
which created enormous conflict of interests. And while the issues of liability, adequate amount

6|Page
~ CASE ANALYSIS ON CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA~
 ~ National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi ~

of compensation, and strategies to resolve the Bhopal controversy are of great significance and
ought to concern us, the issues often ignored relate to the Bhopal victims for whom the bell
continues to toll. Consequently, what is of utmost concern is to devise ways to ensure justice for
the Bhopal victims in the long run and to make certain that their relief and rehabilitation needs
are appropriately met.

CONCLUSION:

To do a great right after all, it is permissible sometimes to do a little wrong

- SABYASACHI MUKHARJI
- (Former Chief Justice)

This case has been a unique case in itself where the urgency of the situation and the lack of
legislations and administrative provisions led to the enactment of the Act in haste and this
subsequent case where the Supreme Court had to interpret that the situation called for the
exceptions in Administrative Law to apply. The Judges also suggested various ways in which
such future situations could be taken care of. The Bhopal gas tragedy and the legal response
thereto have been the subject of great controversy. A review petition against the above settlement
award was filed before the Supreme Court in the Union Carbide Corpn. v. India. Objections
were taken to the competence of the Supreme Court to withdraw criminal prosecutions and pass
such an order in the course of the hearing of appeals arising out of the interlocutory orders in the
suit. The Court, however, set aside the order quashing criminal prosecutions and imposing an
embargo on future prosecutions.

7|Page
~ CASE ANALYSIS ON CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA~