The tragedy of the Bhopal gas leak aka as the case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India , which occurred at midnight on December 2, 1984, following the release of deadly chemical fumes (MIC gas) from the petitioner's factory, was a major industrial disaster that directly resulted in the deaths of 2,600 people and dozens of People left behind Thousands more innocent citizens of Bhopal are physically affected in various ways.

Facts:

The tragedy was the result of a gas leak of methyl isocyanate (MIC) from Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) pesticides factory. On the night of December 2-3, 1984, MIC gas, considered to be the most toxic chemical compound used in industry, was released. Throughout the city of Bhopal people were exposed to this gas and the immediate effects of inhaling the gas were coughing, vomiting, severe eye irritation and suffocation. Thousands were killed instantly and thousands were permanently injured. It is assumed that at the time of the accident most of the safety systems were inoperative and most of the safety valves were in poor condition.During the night of December 2-3, 1984, large amounts of water entered tank #610, which contained about 42 tons of methyl isocyanate. 

Meanwhile, workers were cleaning the pipes with water, and some say that due to poor maintenance and leaking valves, water may have entered the 610 tank, causing an exothermic reaction that raised the temperature and pressure inside the tank. This sudden depressurization released large amounts of MIC gas into the atmosphere. Gases flooded the city of Bhopal, causing widespread panic as people woke up with burning pains in their lungs.Thousands of people died instantly from the gas and many were trampled in panic. Long-term health effects from the gas include impaired vision, blindness, breathing difficulties, immune and neurological disorders, lung damage, reproductive problems in women, and birth defects in children of affected women.

Issues:

1. Whether such compensation is adequate or not the majority bench held that the said compensation is adequate, reasonable and fair and in case any deficiency arises in money for rehabilitation, such money shall be tendered by the Union & State government?
2. Whether they are complying with all the safety measures prescribed by the appropriate laws?
3. Whether the citizens of the country are assured the protection of a legal system which could be said to be adequate in a comprehensive sense in such contexts arise?

Contention Of The Parties:

Petitioner:

1. The withdrawal of the criminal complaint against Union Carbide was unlawful and the level of compensation was insufficient in relation tothe damage caused by the disaster. 
2. The signatories on the issue argued that the majority believed that the waiver of criminal charges against Union Carbide was unjustified and believed that criminal charges should be filed.
3. The learned Attorney General said that even the most serious, sincere and committed efforts to reach an agreement risked encountering reasonable criticism.

Respondent:

1. Shri Nariman said her client would keep her previous offer of $350 million and also said her client also offered to add reasonable interest to US interest.A., for a total of $350 million, bringing the number to $426 million.
2. Regarding this offer of $426 million, the learned Attorney General said he could not accept it and argued that less than $500 million was not appropriate.
3. Judgement:

The majority opinion was presented by Judge Venkatachaliah on his behalf and on behalf of K.N. Singh and ND Ojha JJ.while CJ Mishra agreed with him and Ahmadi J. wrote a minority opinion.

The majority believed that there was no justification for dropping the criminal charges against Union Carbide and concluded that criminal proceedings should be instituted. Whether or not such compensation was adequate, the majority felt that such compensation was fair, reasonable and just and that in the event of a lack of funds for rehabilitation, such funds would be made available by the Union and State governments. At this point Ahmadi J.disagree with the majority. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the criminal proceedings were not justified, reversed the previous order and ordered the criminal proceedings to be initiated as soon as possible. In , the Supreme Court also held the recognized sum to be congruent, congruent, and congruent; If the victim's rehabilitation fails, the government takes care of it.

Union Carbide Corporation was ordered to pay Indian Union $470 million in damages to settle all claims due by March 31, 1989.

The Dissent:

The court explained how it calculated the value of the compensation.Article no. hospitalized which is a key indicator and was pending the Supreme Court decision on the claims and demands contained in the amended Union of India documents. The total death toll was estimated at 3,000 and the average salary at Rs 1 lakh to Rs 3 lakh or around Rs 70 crore.

The Supreme Court recognized the need for a national policy to protect national interests from such a dangerous pursuit of economic gain and called on the help of jurists, economists, environmentalists, sociologists and futurologists to identify areas of common interest and set criteria , which they could receive judicial recognition and judicial sanction.

Critical Analysis:

The case had both positive and negative takeaways. On the one hand, although the criminal charges against the state and UCIL should not have been overturned by the Supreme Court, the legislature has passed and amended all the necessary legislation to prevent new similar cases.While there have been international environmental guidelines and guidelines, the Indian legislature has not passed any legislation, despite being a signatory and party to the Stockholm Conference. After the law was enacted after the Bhopal gas tragedy, while it failed to prevent further tragedies such as the oleum gas spill, it did establish perpetrators' liability, which was a necessary step forward.

The legislature's decision to appoint foreign judges to hear the case has been widely criticized. This reflected the distrust and incompetence of the Indian courts. At the same time, the compensation awarded to the victims was insufficient.This was later remedied by the courts by awarding compensation from centre and state funds, which was unfair and disproportionate as public money cannot be used for private wrongdoing.

Conclusion

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy is still considered the worst industrial disaster in the world. Its aftermath was a warning that the road to industrialization is fraught with human, environmental and economic pitfalls. This is where the concept of sustainable development comes into play. The verdict in the case was also heavily criticized as neither the fine imposed on the company nor the contributions paid by the government were fully sufficient as those affected by the crash were not the only victims. Every year the number of deaths, the sick, children born with tumors or deformities and the completely disabled increases.