Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Supreme Court Transfers Case to High Court for Enhanced Monitoring (09 August 2012)

Citation: 2012 INSC 478
Judges: S.H. Kapadia, CJI, A.K. Patnaik, J., Swatanter Kumar, J.
Can a public interest litigation concerning a major industrial disaster be effectively managed by the Supreme Court, or is it better handled by a High Court with closer jurisdictional ties? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the context of the ongoing Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, deciding to transfer the matter to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for better supervision and implementation of relief measures. This decision aims to streamline the monitoring of healthcare and research efforts for the victims of the 1984 disaster. The judgment was authored by Justice Swatanter Kumar, with the bench consisting of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justice A.K. Patnaik.

Case Background

The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster occurred on the night of December 2-3, 1984, when toxic gases leaked from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Initially, the number of affected individuals was thought to be small, but a 1987 report by the Scientific Commission for Continuing Studies on Effects of Bhopal Gas Leakage on Life Systems estimated that around 200,000 people were exposed. This number later increased to approximately 500,000. The report also highlighted that less than 20% of the exposed population had been covered by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) through epidemiological surveys. The disaster led to severe health issues among the victims, necessitating long-term medical care and research.

In 1998, the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghathan filed a public interest litigation (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 50 of 1998) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking free and proper medical assistance for the victims. The petitioners also requested that the ICMR resume research studies and make its reports public. Over the years, the Supreme Court issued various directions to the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh to ensure that the gas victims received appropriate medical treatment. The court also established the Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC) and the Bhopal Memorial Hospital Trust (BMHT) to provide healthcare to the affected population.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and issued several directions to ensure proper medical treatment to the gas victims. The Court formed two expert committees: the Monitoring Committee and the Advisory Committee, to oversee the healthcare and research efforts. The ICMR also conducted research, but it was criticized for disbanding its research efforts in 1994. Appeals against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh were also clubbed with the PIL. Over time, the management of BMHRC was taken over by the Union of India, and the BMHT was directed to be wound up. Various applications were filed seeking directions related to the management and control of BMHRC, leading to the current judgment.

Legal Framework

The legal framework primarily involves Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The petitioners argued that the gas victims’ right to health was being violated due to inadequate medical assistance and research. The court also considered the need for effective implementation of relief and rehabilitation programs, as well as the proper functioning of the expert bodies. The court also referred to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, particularly Sections 14, 29, 30 and 38(5), to highlight that environmental issues should be addressed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

Arguments

The petitioners argued for the following:

• Effective steps for providing free medicines and a detailed medical rehabilitation plan.
• Resumption of research studies by ICMR and publication of reports.
• Computerization of hospital records and issuance of health booklets to gas victims.
• Issuance of smart cards to gas victims for easier access to medical facilities.
• Adoption of a common referral system among medical units under BMHRC and BGTRRD.
• Establishment of a computerized Central Registry to maintain medical records.
• Streamlining and intensification of epidemiological studies.
• Preparation of treatment protocols for various ailments suffered by gas victims.
• The Monitoring Committee should have jurisdiction over all hospitals, including private ones, and should have the power to recommend penal action against defaulters.
• Research work should be carried out by private laboratories and research units.

The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh, contended that:

• They had taken steps to provide medical treatment to the gas victims.
• The Monitoring Committee’s jurisdiction should be limited to government hospitals.
• The State Government has implemented most of the directions issued by the Monitoring Committee.
• The corpus money had been transferred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
• The management of BMHRC had been taken over by the Department of Health Research (DHR).
• The research work was being carried out by ICMR and NIREH.

The Monitoring Committee proposed additional powers, including:

• Powers to take up matters based on complaints from gas victims.
• Powers to direct the State government to provide necessary facilities.
• Provision for honorarium to committee members.
• Powers to requisition official documents and inspect records.
• Powers to collect samples of medicines and other items.
• Powers to recommend penal action against officers failing to implement recommendations.
• Powers to award studies to selected agencies.
• Powers to engage experts.
• Powers to call for public hearings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court were:

1. Whether the Supreme Court should continue to monitor the case, or transfer it to a High Court.
2. Whether the Monitoring Committee should have jurisdiction over private hospitals and clinics.
3. Whether private institutions should be involved in the research work.
4. Whether the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee should be accepted and implemented.
5. Whether the corpus of the BMHT should be transferred to the Union of India.
6. Whether the BMHT should be dissolved.
7. Whether directions should be issued to improve the healthcare and research efforts for the gas victims.
8. Whether the toxic waste lying in and around the factory of Union Carbide Corp. (I) Ltd. in Bhopal should be disposed of.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in its judgment. The court did discuss the following legal provisions:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court emphasized that the gas victims were entitled to multi-dimensional healthcare under this article.
• The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: The Court referred to Sections 14, 29, 30, and 38(5) of the Act to state that environmental issues should be litigated before the National Green Tribunal.

Judgment

The Supreme Court decided to transfer the case to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur, for better and effective control. The Court also issued several directions to ensure proper implementation of relief and rehabilitation programs for the gas victims. The Court’s decision was based on the following:

• The High Court would be better positioned to appreciate the requirements of the gas victims and exercise better control over the functioning of the committees and organizations.
• The Monitoring Committee’s jurisdiction would be limited to government hospitals, and private hospitals would not be brought under its control.
• Research work would continue to be carried out by ICMR and NIREH, and private institutions would not be involved.
• The corpus of the BMHT would be transferred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the BMHT would be dissolved.
• The State Government was directed to provide proper office space and infrastructure to the Monitoring and Advisory Committees.
• The State Government was directed to take steps to fill up vacancies of doctors and supporting staff.
• The Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh were directed to take immediate steps for disposal of toxic waste.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court relied on Article 21 to emphasize the fundamental right to health and life for the gas victims, underscoring the State’s responsibility to provide adequate medical care and rehabilitation.
• The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: The Court referred to the NGT Act to clarify that environmental issues should be addressed by the NGT, but noted that this case was an exception due to its administrative nature.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need for better and more effective monitoring and implementation of relief measures for the gas victims. The Court felt that a jurisdictional High Court would be better equipped to handle the day-to-day supervision and coordination required for this complex case. The Court also emphasized the importance of continuing research and providing proper healthcare to the victims. The Court was concerned about the lack of coordination between various agencies and the need for better infrastructure and resources for the committees involved in the relief efforts.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court reveals a strong emphasis on the need for efficient and effective implementation of relief measures, as well as the importance of protecting the rights of the gas victims. The Court’s reasoning was influenced by the following points:

• Need for Effective Monitoring: The Court emphasized the need for a jurisdictional High Court to handle day-to-day directions and supervision of the committees and organizations involved in relief efforts.
• Protection of Victims’ Rights: The Court stressed the importance of providing proper healthcare and rehabilitation to the gas victims, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Importance of Research: The Court highlighted the need for continued research by ICMR and NIREH to address the long-term health issues of the gas victims.
• Coordination and Infrastructure: The Court noted the lack of coordination between various agencies and the need for better infrastructure and resources for the committees involved in the relief efforts.
• Disposal of Toxic Waste: The Court emphasized the need for immediate and scientific disposal of toxic waste to prevent further harm to human health and the environment.

The following table shows the ranking of sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law

The ratio table for showing the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide:

The Court’s decision was influenced by both factual considerations (the need for better monitoring and implementation of relief measures) and legal considerations (the rights of the victims under Article 21 and the need for environmental issues to be addressed by the NGT). However, the factual aspects of the case weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factors, including the need for better administrative supervision, the rights of the gas victims, and the importance of continued research and environmental safety.

The Supreme Court observed:

“In our considered opinion, it will be appropriate that day-to-day directions are passed by a jurisdictional High Court. Such Court would be in a better position to appreciate the requirements of the gas affected victims as well as to exercise better control over the functioning of the said Committees and organizations.”

The Court also noted:

“In terms of Article 21 of the Constitution, all the gas victims are entitled to greater extent of multi-dimensional health care, as their sufferings are in no way, directly or indirectly, attributable to them.”

Further, the Court stated:

“It is indisputable that huge toxic materials/waste is still lying in and around the factory of Union Carbide Corp. (I) Ltd. in Bhopal. Its very existence is hazardous to health. It needs to be disposed of at the earliest and in a scientific manner.”

Key Takeaways

• The Bhopal Gas Tragedy case was transferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for better supervision.
• The Monitoring Committee’s jurisdiction was limited to government hospitals.
• Private institutions were not allowed to conduct research work related to the gas tragedy.
• The corpus of the BMHT was transferred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
• The BMHT was dissolved.
• The Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh were directed to take immediate steps for disposal of toxic waste.
• The State Government was directed to provide proper office space and infrastructure to the Monitoring and Advisory Committees.
• The State Government was directed to take steps to fill up vacancies of doctors and supporting staff.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The Public Interest Litigation was transferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
2. The Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was requested to ensure that the case is dealt with by an appropriate bench.
3. The State of Madhya Pradesh was directed to provide proper and adequate office space for the Monitoring and Advisory Committees.
4. The members of the Committees would be entitled to receive Rs. 1,000 honorarium for each effective meeting.
5. The Monitoring Committee was authorized to hear complaints, call for records, and make recommendations to the government.
6. The Monitoring Committee’s jurisdiction was limited to government hospitals.
7. ICMR and NIREH were directed to ensure that research work is carried on with exactitude and expeditiousness.
8. The Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh were directed to render all assistance to ensure that there is no impediment in the research work.
9. The Monitoring Committee was directed to operationalize medical surveillance, computerization of medical information, and publication of health booklets.
10. The State Government was directed to provide assistance to the Monitoring Committee and take action against erring officers.
11. The concerned authorities were directed to take steps to fill up vacancies of doctors and supporting staff.
12. The Union of India, the State Government, and the ICMR were directed to consider providing autonomy to BMHRC and making it a teaching institution.
13. The Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh were directed to take immediate steps for disposal of toxic waste.
14. The Advisory Committee, the Monitoring Committee, and NIREH were directed to file quarterly reports before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
15. The BMHT was directed to be dissolved.
16. The corpus of BMHT was directed to be transferred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
17. Accounts of BMHRC and allied departments were directed to be audited by the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Madhya Pradesh.
18. The State Government and the Monitoring Committee were directed to evolve a methodology of a common referral system.
19. The Monitoring Committee, with the aid of the Advisory Committee, NIREH, and specialized doctors, was directed to issue a standardized protocol for treating each category of ailment.
20. All concerned were directed to carry out the above directions expeditiously.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that matters requiring day-to-day supervision and implementation of relief measures should be handled by a jurisdictional High Court. The Supreme Court clarified that while environmental issues should be litigated before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), this case was an exception due to its administrative nature. The Court also reinforced the fundamental right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the State’s responsibility to provide adequate medical care and rehabilitation to the gas victims. This case does not change the previous positions of law but rather clarifies the appropriate forum for handling such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh marks a significant step towards ensuring more effective monitoring and implementation of relief measures for the victims. By limiting the jurisdiction of the Monitoring Committee to government hospitals and directing the disposal of toxic waste, the Court has addressed key concerns raised in the case. The transfer of the case to the High Court is expected to result in better coordination and more efficient delivery of healthcare and research efforts for thegas victims. The directions issued by the Court provide a framework for the continued efforts to address the long-term effects of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. This judgment emphasizes the importance of a jurisdictional approach in handling complex cases that require continuous monitoring and implementation of relief measures.