DECCAN INQUIRER
e news bi-weekly
EDITOR: NAGARAJA.M.R ....
VOL.22 .. .ISSUE...17……26/02/2026
Editorial : Amend SHANTI Act 2025
Dilution of Corporate Liability
MNCs are investing in India not only for availability of cheap labor more for lax environmental , safety , accounting government regulations in india. Back home those MNCs are facing strict environmental , safety & accounting regulations in USA & EU.
Government of India has diluted the corporate liability of Nuclear energy Producing Companies in India by SHANTI Act 2025.
Just refer how a pittance was paid to bhopal gas disaster survivors in comparison to BP oil spillage payout. There is stark disparity.
Indian government agencies are not in a position to handle such disasters. Over and above Indian government makes caste discrimination while providing health care. If survivor happens to be from forward caste no medical help , only SC ST survivors will get medical care. Just refer special Medical benefits extended by government of Karnataka to SC ST patients only.
Amend SHANTI Act 2025.
Your's
Nagaraja.M.R.
Double standards of MNCs & governments
BP has paid over $65 billion in total costs for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including a record $20.8 billion federal settlement, to cover economic damages, cleanup, and environmental restoration. Most claims were processed through the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) and the Deepwater Horizon Court-Supervised Settlement Program.
Key Compensation & Settlement Details:
Total Costs: Exceeded $65 billion as of 2018, covering cleanup, fines, and claims.
Final Settlement (2016): A $20.8 billion settlement with the US government and five Gulf states was approved, marking the largest environmental settlement in US history.
Breakdown of Settlement:
$5.5 billion in Clean Water Act penalties.
$7.1 billion for natural resource damages.
$4.9 billion for economic claims by Gulf Coast states.
$1 billion for local government claims.
Economic Damages: BP paid roughly $20 billion in economic damages to individuals and businesses.
Claims Process: Most claims for injuries, cleanup work, or economic loss were managed through court-supervised, class-action settlements that closed, though some litigation continued years later for specific illnesses or late-diagnosed conditions.
While the main settlement processes are closed, specialized lawsuits regarding health issues (e.g., related to chemical dispersant exposure) have continued, although proving long-term, delayed-diagnosis claims has proven difficult for some, with many receiving small, fixed, or no compensation, notes Fortune.
Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) paid US$470 million in 1989 as a full and final settlement to the Indian government for the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, which killed thousands. The Indian Supreme Court upheld this settlement in 1991 and dismissed a curative petition for additional funds in March 2023.
Key Aspects of Compensation:
Settlement Amount: In February 1989, UCC paid $470 million (approximately ₹715 crore at the time) to settle all claims and liabilities.
Initial Payout Details: The settlement was meant to cover over 100,000 injured people and 3,000 deaths, though subsequent claims far exceeded these numbers.
Compensation Payouts: Victims received compensation ranging from approximately ₹25,000 to ₹5,00,000 depending on the severity of injury or death, often based on flawed, low-end categories.
Finality of Legal Action: In March 2023, the Supreme Court of India rejected the government's plea for extra compensation, effectively ending additional financial liability for UCC.
Medical Care: The settlement also required UCC to fund a specialized hospital for victims, costing about $17 million.
The compensation has been heavily criticized by activists and victims' groups for being inadequate compared to the long-term health impact, with many victims receiving only minimal payments after years of litigation.
The phrase "match fixing" in the context of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy does not refer to sports, but rather alleges a deeply corrupt nexus between the Indian government, state officials, and Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) that severely undermined justice for the victims.
Activists, survivors, and legal experts have used this term to describe how the handling of the disaster, from the initial containment to the final legal settlements, was manipulated to protect corporate interests over human life.
Here are the key aspects of the alleged "match fixing" in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy:
1. The 1989 Out-of-Court "Fix"
Settlement Value: In 1989, the Indian Supreme Court brokered a deal where UCC paid US$470 million, just one-seventh of the $3.3 billion originally demanded by the Indian government.
Termination of Cases: In return for this payment, all civil and criminal proceedings against Union Carbide were terminated.
Justice Denied: Victims' groups viewed this as a "betrayal" and a "match-fixing" deal, as the amount was inadequate for the thousands dead and hundreds of thousands injured.
2. Allowing the "Fixer" to Escape
Warren Anderson: UCC CEO Warren Anderson was arrested upon arrival in Bhopal three days after the tragedy but was released on bail, placed under house arrest, and swiftly permitted to leave the country with the help of local authorities.
Absconder Status: Despite being declared an "absconder" by a Bhopal court in 1992, the Indian government failed to successfully extradite him before his death in 2014.
3. Lowering Criminal Charges
Downgraded Liability: In 1996, the Supreme Court downgraded charges against Indian officials of Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) from "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" (Section 304 Part II) to "death by negligence" (Section 304A).
Light Sentences: This reduction in charges meant the maximum sentence was only two years, and the convicted officials were immediately released on bail.
4. Administrative and Medical Negligence
Ignoring Warnings: Years before the 1984 disaster, warnings from local journalists and trade unions about faulty safety systems were ignored by state officials.
Medical Data Suppression: The Indian government was criticized for not making data regarding the toxicity of the gas public in the immediate aftermath, which led to incorrect, often harmful, treatments for survivors.
5. Continued Lack of Accountability
Dismissed Petitions: As recently as 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed a curative petition by the Indian government seeking additional compensation (over ₹7,000 crore) from UCC's successor, Dow Chemical, further cementing the, now40-year-old, 1989 settlement.
Environmental Remediation: The site remains contaminated, and despite court orders, proper cleanup has not been completed, with legal battles dragging on for decades.
The tragedy is often cited as a prime example of "corporate-state complicity" where the victims were "cheated" of justice while corporations and officials shielded each other.
india nuclear liability cap
Under the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010, India caps the operator's liability at ₹1,500 crore per incident, with total liability capped at 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)—roughly ₹3,167 crore to ₹3,900 crore—bridged by the government
. The upcoming SHANTI Bill 2025/2026 proposes adjusting this, allowing private participation and potentially limiting supplier liability.
Key Aspects of Nuclear Liability in India:
Operator Liability: ₹1,500 crore is the maximum liability for the operator (usually NPCIL) per incident.
Total Liability & Government Role: The maximum total compensation liability is 300 million SDRs. If damages exceed ₹1,500 crore, the Central Government covers the remaining amount up to the 300 million SDR cap.
Supplier Liability & Recourse: The 2010 Act allows the operator a right of recourse against suppliers in case of accidents caused by defective equipment.
SHANTI Bill 2025/2026 Updates: This new bill aims to align with international norms by potentially reducing supplier liability, allowing private operators, and adjusting operator liability caps based on power capacity (up to ₹3,000 crore).
International Convention: India is a member of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), which provides for international funds in case of a nuclear incident exceeding the domestic cap.
The 2010 Act ensures strict liability on the operator, meaning they are liable regardless of fault, while the 2025 SHANTI bill is introduced to facilitate greater private sector involvement in India’s expanding nuclear power program.
Bhopal and the BP Oil Spill: A Tale of Two Disasters
As BP struggles to contain the damage the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has caused to the Gulf of Mexico and to the people whose livelihoods depend on its waters, a legal judgment in the worst industrial catastrophe in history highlights how wrong the aftermath of such disasters can go — not just in terms of a cleanup but in the matter of justice. It is a terrifying lesson in how a corporation can evade full responsibility for one of the most heinous accidents in human history.
On Monday, more than 25 years after 40 tons of highly toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) was released from a Union Carbide plant in the central Indian city of Bhopal — killing thousands in a matter of hours and over years, rendering hundreds of thousands seriously ill and causing genetic defects in yet-to-be-born generations — a local court announced its verdict.
It held eight former employees of Union Carbide India Ltd guilty of criminal negligence and sentenced seven of them to two years in prison and a fine of $2,100. (The eighth defendant died during the course of the 23-year trial.) The convicted former employees were out on bail — of just $500 each — in less than two hours. Union Carbide India, which no longer exists, was fined less than $11,000.
(See the legacy of the Bhopal disaster.)
The judgments are likely to be appealed. Given the speed of the wheels of justice in India, the case is likely to outlast most of the Bhopal survivors and the accused.
The most prominent name in the latter category is Warren Anderson, the American CEO of Union Carbide, the U.S. parent company. He is now 89 years old. Arrested by Indian police when he visited the disaster site, he was released on bail and flew out of the country. He continues to be a fugitive from Indian law and hence has not been tried. (He is believed to be living somewhere in New York state.) At the same time, no one has been assigned responsibility for cleaning up Bhopal’s ground zero, which researchers and activists say continues to leach toxic chemicals into the groundwater, used by thousands of families.
(See TIME’s 1984 cover story on the Bhopal disaster.)
The outcome of the case has ignited outrage and disbelief across India. No less than the Law Minister and a former Chief Justice have said justice has been delayed and denied. The Economic Times newspaper led its front page with the headline “After 25 Years, Another Tragedy Strikes Bhopal.” “We are used to being let down,” says Rachna Dhingra of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action, her voice catching as she spoke to TIME by phone, “by our government … now even the judiciary.”
The letdowns have been serious and repeated — and apparently preordained because of decisions that facilitated the disaster itself. Investigations over the years have shown that the Bhopal plant design was faulty and that there was next to no emergency preparedness — issues that the parent company in the U.S. apparently knew about, according to the groups that conducted the studies. The company was operating in India with standards unacceptable in the U.S.
(See pictures of the Gulf oil spill.)
The Indian government seemed to go out of its way to cushion the experience for Union Carbide. After first suing the company for $3.3 billion in 1985, New Delhi announced an out-of-court settlement of $470 million in February 1989. Then a 1996 ruling by another Supreme Court judge watered down the charges against the accused from culpable homicide (with maximum punishment of 10 years’ jail term) to criminal negligence (maximum sentence two years).
The various governments that have ruled India in the meantime have not taken on Union Carbide, which is now owned by Dow Chemical. Meanwhile, Keshub Mahindra, chairman of Union Carbide India Ltd at the time of the Bhopal disaster and now chairman of India’s automobile giant Mahindra & Mahindra, was nominated for a civilian honor, the Padma Bhushan, in 2002. He had to decline in the face of widespread protests.
Although environmental legislation was ramped up in the wake of the Bhopal disaster, companies continue to operate in India in ways that severely — if not as dramatically — pollute the environment and impact people’s health and livelihoods. Britain-based mining major Vedanta, for instance, has faced censure from Amnesty International for violating the human rights of communities in Orissa, where it operates bauxite mines.
India continues to be the world’s e-waste dump. Of late, the government, keen to attract foreign investment to its nascent nuclear energy market, has been pushing a bill to limit the liability of a nuclear-plant operator to $111 million. “We’ve learned nothing from Bhopal,” says Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan. “There is a drive to attract foreign investment overwhelming all other considerations.”
Opposition parties have already demanded a rethink of the proposed legislation in the face of the Bhopal outcome.
(See pictures of people protesting BP.)
There is still outrage that the U.S. refuses to extradite Warren Anderson to face criminal charges in India. New Delhi made the request in 2003, and it was refused the year after. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert Blake, reacting to Monday’s Bhopal verdict, said, “I don’t expect this verdict to reopen any new inquiries or anything like that. On the contrary, we hope that this is going to help to bring closure.” The Bhopal activists now plan to file a writ petition in the higher court to admit more charges against Union Carbide and Anderson, seeking an as-yet-unspecified figure for personal and property damages, health monitoring and cleanup of the site, which is likely to run into billions of dollars.
Indians point at the way the U.S. government is now confronting BP — holding it squarely responsible for the oil spill and accountable for all cleanup costs — as a stark contrast to the way their own government has dealt with Union Carbide.
The hope in India is that U.S. courts will be more amenable to the requests of Bhopal’s victims now that America has a huge environmental disaster in its own backyard. The Bhopal activists say the Indian government must join the case in the U.S. as a plaintiff (indeed, it owns the land on which the Union Carbide factory was located).
“Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should be inspired by President Obama’s recent commitment toward making BP pay every cent for its oil spill,” says Satinath Sarangi of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action. “And the U.S. government must follow the same standards on corporate liability for U.S. corporations operating in India as it expects for corporations operating in the U.S.”
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA
India post digipin
4M6-3LT-9P7P
4M6-3LT-9P73
Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page : https://e-inquirer.blogspot.com/
Contact : naag@gmx.com
Comments
Post a Comment