Limits of Curative Jurisdiction•2 min read•decided 14 March 2023

Union of India and Others v. Union Carbide Corporation and Others

Bench: Constitution Bench (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath & J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.)
Review & Curative Petitions (Order XLVII)
Read the full judgment on Indian Kanoon
Core Legal Ratio Decidendi

"Curative jurisdiction cannot be expanded to reopen or 'top up' a settlement accepted by the Court decades earlier; absent fraud, a settlement recorded by the Court is final, whatever later assessments say about its adequacy."

I
Step 1

Issues Before the Court

  1. (i)

    Whether, in curative petitions filed in 2010, the Supreme Court could 'top up' the compensation fixed by the 1989 settlement of US$470 million between the Union of India and Union Carbide Corporation for the Bhopal gas leak, without setting the settlement aside?

  2. (ii)

    What are the limits of the curative jurisdiction recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra?

R
Step 2

Law & Rules Applicable

  1. (i)

    Constitution of India, Articles 129, 137 and 142, and the curative jurisdiction recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.

  2. (ii)

    Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the scheme framed under it.

A
Step 3

Application to Facts & Circumstances

The settlement recorded by the Supreme Court in 1989 was upheld on review in 1991, when the Court also directed the Union of India to take out insurance cover for possible future claimants. In 2010 the Union filed curative petitions seeking additional amounts on the ground that the number of deaths and injuries, and the extent of environmental damage, had been underestimated. It did not plead fraud.

Writing for the Constitution Bench, Kaul J. held that a settlement can be set aside only on the ground of fraud, which had not even been pleaded. The Court declined to devise an expansive curative jurisdiction or to grant a sui generis 'top-up' that no known legal principle supported; sympathy for the victims could not override the finality of a settlement accepted by the Court decades earlier.

The Union had offered no explanation for raising the issue more than two decades after the tragedy, when the money had been needed in its immediate aftermath. Its failure to take out the insurance policy directed in 1991 was, the Court said, gross negligence.

The Court directed that ₹50 crores lying with the Reserve Bank of India be used by the Union to satisfy pending claims, if any, under the 1985 Act and its scheme.

C
Step 4

Conclusion & Ruling

  1. (i)

    The curative petitions were dismissed, each party bearing its own costs.

  2. (ii)

    Curative jurisdiction is confined to the narrow grounds recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra; it cannot be used, absent fraud, to reopen a settlement decades later or to award a 'top-up'.

  3. (iii)

    The amount lying with the Reserve Bank was directed to be applied to any pending claims under the 1985 Act.

Authorities Cited

Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.

  1. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388Case brief →Full text of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra on Indian Kanoon
← All case law briefs