Dateline Bhopal

1969: Union Carbide India Limited’s (UCIL) plant at Bhopal, designed by its holding company Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), USA (which held 50.9% of UCIL’s equity) was built in 1969 as a formulation factory for UCC’s Sevin brand of pesticides, produced by reacting Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) and alpha naphthol. Sevin kills pests by paralysing their nervous systems. At this time MIC was imported from the US in steel containers. The plant was set up on land taken on long-term lease from the state of Madhya Pradesh.

1975: UCC decided to ‘integrate backwards’ and manufacture ingredients of Sevin at the Bhopal plant of UCIL. Although zonal regulations prohibited locating polluting activity in the vicinity of 2 kms from the railway station, UCC was able to persuade the authorities to grant it the necessary clearances.

1978: The alpha naphtol manufacturing unit was set up and a year later the MIC unit was set up at UCIL’s plant in Bhopal.

25 December 1981: Leak of phosgene gas at the UCIL plant killed one worker.

9 January 1982: 25 workers were hospitalised as a result of another leak at the UCIL plant. Workers’ protests went unheeded.

1982: Bhopal journalist Rajkumar Keswani wrote a series of articles in the local press about dangers posed by the UCIL plant.

March 1982: Leak from one of the solar evaporation ponds took place in March 1982. In April 1982 a UCIL document addressed to UCC noted that the continued leakage was causing great concern.

May 1982: UCC sent its US experts to UCIL plant to conduct audit. The team noticed leaking valves and a total of 61 hazards, 30 of which were major and 11 of which were in the MIC/phosgene units.

September 1982: UCIL de-linked the alarm from the siren warning system so that only their employees would be alerted over minor leaks without ‘unnecessarily’ causing ‘undue panic’ among neighbourhood residents.

5 October 1982: Another leak from the plant resulted in hospitalisation of hundreds of nearby residents.

4 March 1983: Bhopal lawyer Shahnawaz Khan served a legal notice on UCIL stating that the plant posed a serious risk to health and safety of workers and nearby residents.

29 April 1983: In a written reply, UCIL’s Works Manager denied the allegations as baseless.

Between 1983 and 1984: The safety manuals were rewritten to permit switching off the refrigeration unit and shutting down the vent gas scrubber when the plant was not in operation.

The staffing at the MIC unit was reduced from 12 to 6; Thus at the time of the disaster on the night of 2/3 December 1984, the refrigeration unit installed to cool MIC and prevent chemical reactions had been shut for three months; the vent gas scrubber had been shut off for maintenance; the flare tower had been shut off; there were no effective alarm systems in place; the water sprayers were incapable of reaching the flare towers; the temperature and pressure gauges were malfunctioning; tank number 610 for storing MIC was filled above recommended capacity; and, the standby tank for use in case of excess already contained MIC.

29 November 1984: UCC had by this time decided to dismantle the plant and ship it to Indonesia or Brazil. The feasibility report for this was completed on 29 November, three days before the disaster.

2 December 1984: At 8.30 pm the workers under instructions from their supervisors began a water-washing exercise to clear the pipes choked with solid wastes. The water entered the MIC tank past leaking valves and set off an exothermic ‘runaway reaction’ causing the concrete casing of tank 610 to split and the contents to leak into the air.

3 December 1984: Because no warning was given to residents or about precautions they should take, many of them ran onto the streets to meet a certain death. A suomotu FIR was recorded by the SHO at P.S. Hanumanganj on 3.12.84 against UCC, UCIL and its executives and employees under s.304(A) IPC. The record indicates the grim statistics:

* 3828 died on the day of the disaster (the unofficial toll is feared to be much higher – by 2003 over 15,000 death claims have been processed);

* Over 30,000 injured on the fateful day (a figure that now stands at 5.5 lakh);

* 2544 animals killed.

3 December 1984: Five junior employees of UCIL were arrested.

6 December 1984: Case was handed over to the CBI. The Government of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December 1984 set up a commission of inquiry called the Bhopal Poisonous Gas Leakage Inquiry Commission, presided over by N.K. Singh, a sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

7 December 1984: Warren Anderson (A1), Keshub Mahindra (A2) and V.P. Gokhale (A3) were arrested and released on bail on the same day. Warren Anderson was escorted out to Delhi on the chief minister’s special plane.

Nearly 145 claims were filed on behalf of victims in various US courts. These were consolidated and placed before the Southern District Court, New York presided over by Judge John Keenan.

29 March 1985: Parliament enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act 1985 whereby the Union of India would be the sole plaintiff in a suit against the UCC and other defendants for compensation arising out of the disaster.

8 April 1985: Union of India filed a complaint on behalf of all victims in Judge Keenan’s court.

29 October 1985: UCIL which was still in control of the plant (except the MIC unit which was sealed by CBI) wrote to UCC that clean-up was going on but ‘some material remains in the tank bottom.’

15 December 1985: The N.K. Singh Commission of Inquiry wound up on 15 December 1985 with the Government of Madhya Pradesh not extending its term of one year. A week thereafter, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) submitted a detailed report squarely implicating the UCC for faulty design of the plant as well as its reckless disregard of operational safety.

12 May 1986: Accepting the forum non conveniens defence, Judge Keenan dismissed the claim conditional upon UCC submitting to the jurisdiction of Indian courts. Meanwhile, in 1986, two writ petitions were filed in Supreme Court of India challenging the validity of the Claims Act.

5 September 1986: Union of India filed a suit against UCC in the Bhopal District Court.

4 January 1987: Against the order dated 12 May 1986 of Judge Keenan, appeals were filed by the 145 individual plaintiffs and the UCC. By order dated 4 January 1987, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disposed of the appeals by modifying the conditions subject to which the suit by Union of India had been dismissed.

5 October 1987: Union of India’s further petition for a writ of certiorari against the order of the Court of Appeals was declined by the US Supreme Court on 5 October 1987.

1 December 1987: CBI filed a charge-sheet in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal charging the accused for offences under s.304 Part II IPC and other offences.

17 December 1987: An interim compensation of Rs 350 crore was ordered by Judge Deo, District Judge, Bhopal.

4 April 1988: This was challenged before the High Court at Jabalpur. In a judgment dated 4 April 1988, the High Court reduced the interim compensation to Rs 250 crore. UCC challenged this further before the Supreme Court.

14/15 February 1989: the Supreme Court approved a settlement arrived at in the appeal by UCC whereby $ 470 million was to be paid by it and UCIL to the Union of India in full and final settlement of all claims and criminal proceedings would stand quashed.

4 May 1989: The Supreme Court set out its basis for endorsing the amount of US $470 million.

Following widespread protests over the manner of arriving at the settlement and the quashing of criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court agreed to review the settlement.

June 1989: Meanwhile in June 1989 UCC finalised a ‘Site Rehabilitation Project – Bhopal Plant’ for decontamination of the plant site which contained huge quantities of sevin and naphthol tarry residues and solid wastes dumped in the solar evaporation ponds. Since no Indian organisation had the expertise, it was decided that NEERI undertake the task under the supervision of Arthur D. Little & Co appointed by UCC.

22 December 1989: Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Claims Act applying the doctrine of parens patriae (Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India {1990} 1 SCC 613).

1990: NEERI submitted its first report in 1990 stating that there was no contamination of the groundwater in and around the plant site. Subsequent documentation reveals that UCC itself doubted NEERI’s conclusions since their internal notes revealed that majority of liquid samples collected from the area ‘contained napthol or sevin in quantities far more than permitted by ISI for inland disposal.’

3 October 1991: Supreme Court declined to reopen the settlement. However, the criminal proceedings were directed to be revived. The court expressed a hope that UCC would contribute Rs 50 crore to set up of a hospital at Bhopal for the victims.

1 February 1992: The CJM Bhopal declared A1 Warren Anderson, A10 UCC, and A11 UCC (Eastern, Hongkong) as proclaimed offenders. The CJM directed that if parties did not appear before him on 27 March 1992, he would order attachment of UCC’s shares in UCIL, under s.82 Cr.PC.

27 March 1992: A1, A10 and A11 fail to appear before the CJM, but attachment of shares was put off at UCIL’s request.

15 April 1992: UCC announced creation of the Bhopal Hospital Trust in London with Sir Ian Percival as Sole Trustee and endowed its entire shareholding in UCIL to the Trust, clearly to defeat the attachment.

30 April 1992: CJM Bhopal refused to recognise the creation of the Trust and endowment of UCIL shares and proceeded to attach those shares.

22 June 1992: Trial of the Indian accused was separated and committed to the Sessions Court.

19 August 1992: The central government announced a scheme of interim relief to the gas victims at Rs 200 per month subject to a maximum of 5 lakh victims for a period of three years beginning 1 April 1990. The Supreme Court, in a writ petition by the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan, directed by its orders dated 19 August and 4 November 1992 interim relief to be paid to all victims, including those left out from the scheme as announced.

16 October 1992: By an order dated 24 February 1989 the Settlement Fund of US $420 million had been directed to be kept in a separate dollar account with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in the name of the Registrar of the Supreme Court. On an application by the Union of India, the court on 16 October 1992 permitted the account to be now held in the name of the Welfare Commissioner, subject to the condition that RBI would not release any part of the amount except on a certificate by the Welfare Commissioner that the amount withdrawn was for payment of compensation to the claimants.

8 April 1993: Charges framed by the Sessions Court, Bhopal against Indian accused for offences under s.304 Part II IPC.

28 May 1993: The Supreme Court directed continuation of interim relief to the victims from 1 June 1993 and permitted Union of India to withdraw Rs 120 crore from the Settlement Fund for this purpose.

10 December 1993: Ian Percival approached the Union of India with an ‘offer’ to sell the attached shares of UCIL to raise money for the Bhopal hospital to be built by UCC. Union of India filed an application in the Supreme Court for enforcement of UCC’s obligation to build the expert medical facility. At the first hearing of the application, Ian Percival was present and heard. The Supreme Court asked the Union of India to consider the Sole Trustee’s suggestion which was ‘eminently reasonable, worthy of consideration.’

14 February 1994: Supreme Court modified the CJM’s attachment order and permitted the attached shares to be sold.

September 1994: UCC’s shares in UCIL sold to McLeod Russell Ltd for Rs 170 crore. UCIL renamed as Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL). After release of around Rs 125 crore (inclusive of dividends) to the BHT, the balance sale proceeds to the tune of about Rs183 crore remained under attachment.

19 September-14 November 1995: Krishna Mohan Shukla, a lawyer practising in the Supreme Court, filed a PIL drawing attention to numerous illegalities in the matter of categorisation, processing and adjudication of claims by the Deputy Welfare Commissioners under the scheme. It was stated that at lok adalats held under the scheme, many claimants were being compelled to accept compensation as low as Rs 25,000 in full and final settlement of the claim, and that such order could not be appealed. A three-member committee was appointed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 19 September 1995 to examine the factual position. In its report dated 14 November 1995, the committee confirmed many of the petitioner’s contentions and concluded ‘all is not well in the matter of disbursement of claims.’

3 April 1996: Supreme Court directed a sum of Rs 187 crore from the attached monies to be further released to BHT for the construction of the hospital.

1 May 1996: In the petition by Krishna Mohan Shukla, the Supreme Court struck down certain circulars issued by the Welfare Commissioner under which a Deputy Welfare Commissioner could not revise the category under which the claimant was classified unless the Welfare Commissioner approved it. It called for details of the cases settled in lok adalats.

13 September 1996: Meanwhile, the Indian accused failed in their challenge to the order framing charges before the High Court at Jabalpur. They then approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. By judgment dated 13 September 1996, the Supreme Court diluted the charges against the Indian accused from s.304 Part II IPC to s.304A IPC. The trial is still pending before the CJM, Bhopal.

October 1997: EIIL retained NEERI and Arthur D. Little to conduct further decontamination studies. NEERI submitted its second report again maintaining that there was no contamination of groundwater and soil around plant site. But Arthur D. Little did not rule them out.

7 November 1997: In the Krishna Mohan Shukla petition, the Supreme Court made an order permitting a claimant who was aggrieved by an order made in the lok adalat to challenge it by way of an appeal.

September 1998: State of MP took control of the land. It put up notices in nearby residential areas warning against drinking water.

November 1999: Greenpeace, an international environmental NGO, came out with an independent test report of soil and water samples collected in areas around the plant site and confirmed extensive contamination. Sevin was seen to have leaked from the ruptured tank and water supplies were found contaminated with ‘heavy metals and persistent organic contaminants.’

15 November 1999: Fresh class action litigation filed in the court of the Southern District New York by Sajida Bano, Haseena Bi and five other victims directly affected by the contamination and five Bhopal victims groups claiming damages under 15 counts. Counts 9 to 15 related to common law environmental claims.

28 August 2000: Judge Keenan dismissed the class action claim on the ground that the 1989 settlement covers all future claims.

5 February 2001: The US Federal Trade Commission approved the merger of UCC with Dow Chemical Company (Dow).

15 November 2001: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, but remanded claims on other counts to Judge Keenan.

April 2002: In discovery proceedings before Judge Keenan, UCC submitted over 4000 documents.

March 2003: Judge Keenan dismissed the suit of Hasina Bi again – this time on grounds of limitation.

March 2004: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part, but asked Judge Keenan on remand to consider claims of Bi arising out of damage to property and the issue of decontamination of the site by UCC if the Union of India and State of MP had no objection.

30 June 2004: After victims went on a hunger strike in Delhi, the Union of India submitted a memorandum before Judge Keenan stating it has no objection to decontamination being undertaken by UCC at UCC’s cost.

19 July 2004: In a representative application by 36 victims, Abdul Samad Khan and others, Supreme Court directed disbursement of the balance compensation pro rata to the victims.

17 September 2004: In another writ petition by the Bhopal groups for medical relief and rehabilitation, Supreme Court finalised the terms of reference of two committees – an advisory committee and a monitoring committee – appointed by it.

26 October 2004: In the Abdul Samad Khan application, the Supreme Court directed the disbursement of balance compensation to commence from 15 November 2004 and conclude by 1 April 2005. The court accepted the action plan prepared by the Welfare Commissioner.

S. Muralidhar