Contacts
Bhopal
Group for Information & Action, Satinath Sarangi +91 755
730914 justiceinbhopal@yahoo.co.in
US Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, G Krishnaveni +1 832
444 1731 krishnaveni_g@sbcglobal.net
UK Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, Tim Edwards +44 1273
711043, 07815 172148, tim@lifecycle.demon.co.uk
NOTES
FOR JOURNALISTS
Discovery
of the new documents comes from a Class action suit ongoing in
the Federal Southern District Court of New York. The suit mainly
alleges that:
A. Union Carbide demonstrated reckless or depraved indifference
to human safety and life in the design, operation and maintenance
of its MIC facilities in Bhopal as well as its safety mechanisms.
B. UCC pursued a systematic policy of racial discrimination
in the design, construction and operation of the Bhopal factory.
C. Union Carbide demonstrated reckless or depraved indifference
to human life in the manufacturing, storage, treatment and disposal
practices at the UCIL plant, resulting in severe contamination
of the soil and water in and around the UCIL plant.
D. Union Carbide and Anderson were and are fugitives from the
lawful jurisdiction of the Bhopal District Court where criminal
charges remain pending against them.
The suit is based on the legal provisions under US law ff Alien
Torts Claims Act [ATCA]. ATCA provides for civil remedies for
‘crimes against humanity’ [atrocities and offences,
including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement,
deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts
committed against a civilian population,] committed by a US agency
in a US court. The suit seeks the federal court’s decree
directing UCC and Anderson to pay exemplary punitive damages in
amounts to be proven in trial.
The plaintiffs and co-plaintiffs
Seven individual victims and five organizations (Bhopal Gas Peedit
Mahila Udyog Sangathan (BGPMUS), Gas Peedit Nirashrit Pension
Bhogi Sangharsh Morcha (GPNPBSM), Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery
Karmachari Sangh (BGPMSKS), Bhopal Gas Peedit Sangharsh Sahayog
Samiti (BGPSSS), and Bhopal Group For Information and Action (BGIA).
See www.earthrights.org/bhopal
The suit has been filed on behalf of:
a. All persons who suffered personal injuries as a result of
exposure to the MIC gas
b. All persons who are entitled to recover damages for losses
caused by death of their relatives
c. All persons who were exposed to MIC as set forth above but
whose injuries have not yet manifested themselves
d. All persons not yet born whose injuries will manifest themselves
as congenital birth defects resulting from exposure to MIC
e. All persons who continue to be exposed to toxic effluents,
chemical by-products and other hazardous agents as a result of
ongoing environmental pollution at Union Carbide’s facility
in Bhopal
Important events with dates
Nov. 15, 1999 - Class action complaint is filed
Nov. 18, 1999 - Effective service of process on Carbide is
accomplished at their Danbury offices.
Nov. 21, 1999 - Process servers inform plaintiffs' counsel
at GLRS that Anderson's Long Island address is a vacant lot.
Nov. 25, 1999 - Process servers inform plaintiffs' counsel
at GLRS that service on the New York condo is not effective service
since its only a mailing address.
March 8, 2000 - Mr. Krohley indicates to GLRS that they
would, now, be willing to accept service on behalf of Warren Anderson
and tried to suggest that he had not been evading service but
has had "some heart trouble" lately.
August 28, 2000: Mr. John F. Keenan dismissed the class action
suit mainly on the ground that the Bhopal Act [Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985] prevented individuals
or organizations outside the Government of India from bringing
an action against Union Carbide or its official.
October 2000: Appeal against Judge Keenan's decision filed
before the Second Circuit Court of Appeal of the US Federal Court.
Futile requests to the Indian government, over several months,
to file an amicus curae before the Court of Appeal to clarify
the role and scope of the Bhopal Act in support of the appeal.
November 15, 2001: The Second Circuit Court of Appeal part
affirmed and part dismissed the decision of Judge Keenan's court.
Claims under seven counts regarding contamination of ground water
and soil in and around the factory and consequent health damages
are directed to Keenan for re-consideration. Plaintiffs file motion
to discovery.
April, 2002: In the ongoing discovery proceedings before Judge
Keenan Union Carbide submitted over 4000 pages of company documents.
June 2002: in response to a petition moved under Rule 56 [f]
by plaintiff's attorney on June 20, 2002 Judge Keenan has directed
Union Carbide to provide additional documentation related to the
case. Union Carbide obeyed this order.
September 20, 2002: plaintiffs and their attorney Mr. Raj
Sharma filed affidavits on the basis of about 100 “smoking
gun” documents before Keenan.
FERA
The Foreign Equity Regulation Act brought into Indian statute
in the 1970’s required foreign holdings to be reduced to
a maximum of 40%. At the time, Union Carbide’s stake in UCIL
stood at 60%. Union Carbide's corporate policy manual states that
"it is the general policy of the Corporation to secure and
maintain effective control of an Affiliate." A specific statutory
exemption to FERA enabled Carbide to retain majority control since
it would be engaging in MIC production that required high-technology
inputs not available in India. MIC production finally started
in Bhopal in 1978/9.
