Crzt

set, o

7 5" --t n
.

1,3 t r . - O u t , )

"tjer

l_.-

260 CHAPTER 5 Foreign Investment

Case 5-5

to take over the suit of victims injured by the subsidiary of a multinational enterprise is the Bhopal case. The Supreme Court of India's rationale for its decision is set out in the following excerpt (see Case 5-5).

THE BHOPAL CASE

India. Supreme Court. 1989. All India Reporter, Supreme Court, vol. 1990, p. 1480 (1989); International Law Reports, vol. 118, p. 451 (2000). On December 2, 1984, enormous amounts of lethal gas leaked from the storage tanks of Union Carbide (I) Ltd. In Bhopal, India. causing death and injury to a large number of people living nearby. Union Carbide (I) was incorporated ill India as a subsidiary of the Union Carbide Corporation of New York. After cases were brought on behalf of the victims in the United Suites by American lawyers, the Indian Parliament adopted the Bhopal Gas Disaster Leak (Processing of Claims) Act 1985 ("Bhopal Act"). This act authorized the Indian central government, the Union of India. to take over the claims of the victims o f _ gas leak, and it promptly brought suit for damages in the District Court of Bhopal. Soon thereafter, the plaintiffs in the cases that had been taken over filed petitions with the Supreme Com of India challenging the constitutionality of the Bhopal Act.
CHIEF JUSTICE SABYASACHI MUKHARJI

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India

['his happens by operation of ... the legislation in question.... However. in cases where . . suits or proceedings have been instituted before the [enactment] of the Act in any court or before any authorit y outside India. . . the Central Government ... has the right to act in place of. or along with, such claimant, provided such court or inithority so permits Therefore. the. Central Government is authorized to act with the claimants in respect of proceedings instituted outside India subject to the orders of such courts or authorities. Is such a right valid and proper? There is the concept known both in this countr y and abroad. called parens patriae.142 Dr. B.K. Mukherjuea, 143 referring to the concept of pawns patriae, has noted that

MAP 5-5

India

(1984)

Before we deal with the question of constitutionality. it has to he emphasized that the Act in question deals DelhiNew with the Bhopal gas leak disaster and it deals with the K a n 'o u r claims arising out [of] or connect[ed] with the disaster for compensation of damages for loss of life or any personal injury.... The Act in question does not purport to deal with . criminal liability.... The Act does not, either. expressl y or impliedly deal with the extent of the damages or liability.... The expression:
the Central Government shall, and shall have the e x c l u s i v e r i g h t i o r e pr e s e n t , a n d a c t i n pl a c e o f ( whether within or outside India) every person who has made, or is entitled to make, a claim for all purposes connected with such claim in the same manner and to the same effect as such person"...

o B h op a l

Calcutta.

Mumtai INDIA

means that the Central Government is substituted and vested with the exclusive right to act in place of the victims.
42Laiin: -parent of the country. -The expression refers to the role of the state as sovereign and guardian of persons untie' disabilities. '431-lindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts." Tagore Law Lectures, p_ 454 (5th ed.).