In Defence of Liberty
Thursday, September 09, 2010
  Search 
Home
Opportunities
Partners
Publications
About Us
 
Please enter your email here, we would like to keep you informed.
 
 
Sections
Liberty In The News
Agriculture
Culture
Democracy
Development is the Key
Economic Freedom
Education for Life
Enterpreneurship
Environment
Freedom of Expression
Freedom to Trade
Globalization for the Good
Health is Wealth
Intellectual Property Rights
International Relations
Liberty is Security
Limited Government
Principles of Politics
Privatisation
Population - the ultimate resource
Property Rights
Regulatory Affairs
Rule of Law
Tax Freedom
Competitions
Facts & Figures
Opportunities
Liberty Events
Last Updated : Thursday, September 09, 2010 Rule of Law
Let down by mai-baap
Hindustan Times
India





Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The law empowering the Indian government to represent Bhopal’s gas victims was unconstitutional. In effect, two guilty parties negotiated with each other. It is not just that the Indian Government didn't punish the criminals effectively. It's actions led to the accident, writes Aman Hingorani.

....

Twenty-five years ago, the government introduced the stand-alone Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 to do just the opposite. By becoming the representative of the Bhopal victims, the government denied them their right to take the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and its subsidiary, Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), to court for compensation. But could the government have represented the victims when it was as guilty and liable to the victims as UCC and UCIL?

We can’t ignore the fact that at the time of the disaster, various Indian investors, including Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), the Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (IDBI) and other public sector institutions, owned 49.1 per cent of UCIL. Further, by granting a licence to manufacture pesticides, the government made the collaboration agreement between UCC and UCIL subject to Indian laws, which include the Insecticide Act of 1968 that regulates the import, manufacture and use of insecticides with a view to safeguard human life from danger. Many central and state agencies, empowered under various acts like the Factories Act 1948, regulated at all times Carbide’s operations, which were approved by the government.

Despite the Canadian government asking UCC in 1972 to shut down its Bhopal operations for fear of damage to life and environment, the Indian government let the plant set up in the heart of the city.

...

It’s difficult to understand how the executive in India escaped its liability towards victims both as a joint tortfeasor (wrong-doer) with UCC and UCIL and for failing to discharge its constitutional obligations of providing pollution-free air and water to people.

...

The Indian State, as a representative of sovereign people, may be sovereign in relation to other countries. But it can’t be sovereign qua its own people from whom it derives its ‘sovereignty’.

...

The executive is as guilty as UCC and UCIL. Unsurprisingly, Parliament came to its rescue by enacting the aforesaid Act and the Supreme Court upheld it. As a result, one guilty party negotiated with another for the compensation due to victims who were precluded by law from even asserting their claim against the State or Union Carbide.

...

And now, the government feels that the existing laws have failed to hold companies financially responsible for man-made disasters and there is a need for a stand-alone law to encourage citizens to claim damages from companies. What’s perhaps been overlooked is that it’s not the laws that have failed us, but the men and women who run the Indian State.

This article was published in the Hindustan Times on Tuesday, June 15, 2010. Please read the original article here.





More Related Articles
Rule of Law
More Articles
An Initiative of
LIBERTY INSTITUTE, INDIA
All rights reserved.