Supreme Court Refuses to 'Top Up' Bhopal Gas Settlement, Dismisses Union's Curative Petitions Against Union Carbide

After the December 1984 gas leak at UCIL's Bhopal factory, the Union, empowered by the 1985 Claims Act, sued UCC for about US $3.3 billion (paras 1-4). In February 1989 this Court recorded a settlement under which UCC paid US $470 million in settlement of all claims (para 5). A Constitution Bench upheld the settlement in review, setting aside only the extinguishment of criminal liability (para 9). In 2010, having filed no review, the Union brought curative petitions to 'top up' the amount, citing more deaths and injuries, relief expenditure and environmental degradation (paras 14-20).

Because review jurisdiction is itself restrictive, a curative jurisdiction cannot be expansive, and Rupa Ashok Hurra cautions against reconsidering final orders as a matter of course (paras 26, 28). The Court still examined the merits (para 28). The settlement rested on the need for immediate succour, and the 'midnight settlement' fraud plea was rejected (para 41). On the Union's own figures the amount was in excess except for minor injuries, pro rata disbursal had doubled compensation, and the Union had admitted claimants received more than was reasonably awardable (paras 42, 45). Exchange-rate gains and interest swelled the fund (para 43). A lump-sum settlement was preferable to an uncertain trial when UCIL's Indian assets were about Rs. 100 crores (para 44). The review judgment made the Union responsible for any deficiency and for insurance, and its failure to take out the policy was gross negligence (para 46). A 'top up' has no foundation in any legal principle, no fraud was pleaded, and Article 142 was not an appropriate route to impose greater liability on UCC (para 47). Closure mattered too: the money was needed immediately, not after three decades (paras 49-50).