Published on: December 31, 2023 at 00:10 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Union of India V. Union Carbide Corpn. (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that closure to a “Lis” is an important aspect of the judicial discipline. It is held that a tort claim can-not be invoked after significant delay. It is held that once the finality has reached then by way of the settlement or otherwise then any misadventure to reopen the same proved unsuccessful.
47. Union of India’s claim for a ‘top up’ has no foundations in any known legal principle. Either a settlement is valid or it is to be set aside in cases where it is vitiated by fraud. No such fraud has been pleaded by the Union, and their only contention relates to a number of victims, injuries, and costs that were not contemplated at the time the settlement was effected.
There is also specifically no pleading under the heading of Claims 2 and 3 that can be said to be admissible, or one that could not be envisaged at the stage of settlement. It was known that medical facilities would have to be extended to rehabilitate people and there was bound to be environmental degradation.
In fact, it is the UCC’s allegation that the Union and State Governments did not proactively detoxify or decomission the site, thereby aggravating the problem. In any case, this cannot be a ground to seek annulment of the compromise, particularly as the settlement had to be reached in an expedient manner.
The learned Attorney General’s response has been that a method for ‘topping up’ the settlement amount be devised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We believe this would not be an appropriate course of action or a method to impose a greater liability on UCC than it initially agreed to bear.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra