Frequently Asked Questions

This is a widespread misconception and is just not true. UCC immediately gave all toxicity information on the chemicals involved in the manufacture of MIC to the Government of India following the incident. Additionally, the Government of India seized plant records after the tragedy and these also would have included all such information on MIC. On the day of the tragedy, UCC dispatched a team of technical MIC experts, who carried MIC studies that were shared with medical and scientific personnel in Bhopal. UCC experts provided all published and unpublished studies available at that time on MIC toxicity.

The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act in March 1985, enabling the Government of India to act as the sole legal representative of the victims in claims arising from or related to the Bhopal disaster. In 1989, the Government of India entered into a $470-million settlement with UCC and UCIL on behalf of the victims. The settlement resulted in a fund that determined eligibility and paid the victims; a government organization administered the fund. Pursuant to the settlement, therefore, the Government of India assumed responsibility for disbursing funds and providing medical coverage to citizens of Bhopal in the event of future illnesses.

Virtually all claims had been reviewed and adjudicated by 2002. A total of Rs. 1511.51 crores was paid from the settlement fund, according to a Government of India Scheme (program), which established the categories of claims and amounts of compensation, and which was administered by the Bhopal Gas Victims Welfare Commissioner. UCC played no role in the distribution of settlement funds. Various activist groups petitioned the Supreme Court in 2003, seeking dispursal of the remaining balance of the settlement funds, which was approximately equal to the amount already paid. In July 2004 -- 15 years after reaching settlement -- the Supreme Court directed the Welfare Commissioner to disburse the balance of Rs. 1503.01 crores to the claimants who had already received compensation, thus doubling the amount of compensation per claimant.

Subsequently, the Welfare Commissioner reported (see paragraph 22) that all claims had been adjudicated and that the claimants had been paid all amounts due to them under the Scheme and the directions of the Supreme Court.

In its 1991 reaffirmation of the 1989 Bhopal settlement, the Indian Supreme Court required the Government of India to make up for any shortfall in the settlement amount (See page 682, paragraph 198 of the Court’s ruling) and to acquire a medical insurance policy to cover 100,000 people who might later develop symptoms shown to have resulted from being exposed during the gas release. (See pages 684-686, paragraphs 205-208 of the Court's ruling.)

UCC has contributed significantly in providing aid to the victims. UCC and UCIL paid the full settlement of $470 million to the Government of India in 1989, and also provided substantial monetary and medical aid to the victims, including establishing a charitable trust fund to which it paid approximately $100 million (including the proceeds of its sale of all its UCIL stock) to build a hospital that opened in Bhopal in 2000.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Government of India assumed responsibility for disbursing funds from the $470-million settlement and providing medical coverage to citizens of Bhopal in the event of future illnesses. In July 2004, 15 years after reaching settlement, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Government of India to release all additional settlement funds to the victims. Subsequently, the Welfare Commissioner reported (see paragraph 22) that all claims had been adjudicated and that the claimants had been paid all amounts due to them under the Scheme and the directions of the Supreme Court.

It is important to remember that when the Supreme Court of India affirmed the settlement in 1991, the Court also:

• Required the Government of India to purchase, out of the settlement fund, a group medical insurance policy to cover 100,000 persons who may later develop symptoms; and
• Required the Government of India to make up any shortfall, however unlikely, in the settlement fund.

Furthermore, in 2007, the Supreme Court of India again reaffirmed the adequacy and finality of the 1989 settlement.

• “It should also be noted that UCC has never been found liable or responsible for damages by any court. As the India Supreme Court noted in its 1991 decision, in analyzing whether “the settlement is just, fair and adequate,” it is “necessary to remind ourselves” that “we should not proceed on the premise that the liability of UCC has been firmly established” because “the suit involves complex questions as to the basis of UCC’s liability and assessment of the quantum of compensation in a mass tort action.”

Calls for a "humanitarian gesture" from UCC are misguided. UCC has made humanitarian gestures by settling the case and setting up a hospital although it had no legal obligation to do so.

Such a gesture cannot be justified, especially since UCC bears no legal responsibility regarding the tragedy. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York noted in ruling that UCC was not responsible for the effects of pollution on the plant site: “[M]any others living near the Bhopal [India] plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity."

Click here for the complete 2013 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York that UCC Not Liable for Pollution-Related, Personal Injury Claims.

In the negotiations leading to the 1989 settlement, the Government of India never demanded $3 billion in damages from UCC. A $3 billion figure was mentioned in the Government of India’s amended pleading in India, but was not based on any actual number of deaths or injuries arising out of the disaster. Instead, it had its genesis in UCC’s announcement of a corporate recapitalization in November 1986, including a plan to repurchase $3.1 billion of debt. When this announcement was made, the Government of India sought to block the recapitalization unless UCC put up a like sum as collateral for plaintiffs’ claims.

The $3 billion figure was never the basis of negotiations between the parties. In fact, the highest amount ever demanded by representatives of the Government of India was $630 million. As recounted in the Supreme Court of India's May 1989 order, in the final stages of negotiations the difference between the parties had been narrowed to a $426 million offer by UCC and a demand for $500 million by the Government of India. Taking into account the positions of the parties and the extensive record before it, the Supreme Court suggested the final sum of $470 million.

Shortly after the gas release, UCC launched an aggressive effort to identify the cause. An initial investigation by UCC showed that a large volume of water had been introduced into the MIC tank. This caused a chemical reaction that forced the pressure release valve to open and allowed the gas to leak. A committee of experts working on behalf of the Indian government conducted its own investigation and reached the same conclusion.

Some two-and-a-half years after the tragedy, and only after the Indian government's reluctant release of some 70,000 pages of documentation, UCC filed a lengthy court document in India detailing the findings of its scientific and legal investigations: The cause of the disaster was undeniably sabotage. Click here to view the Jackson Browning Report. UCC’s investigation proved with virtual certainty that the disaster was caused by the direct entry of water into Tank 610 through a hose connected to the tank.

All of this was supported by hard evidence set forth in the presentation made by Ashok S. Kalelkar of Arthur D. Little, Inc. at The Institution of Chemical Engineers Conference in London in 1988.

Investigations suggest that only an employee with the appropriate skills and knowledge of the site could have tampered with the tank. An independent investigation by the engineering consulting firm Arthur D. Little, Inc., determined that the water could only have been introduced into the tank deliberately, since process safety systems -- in place and operational -- would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident.

No. In fact, documented evidence gathered after the incident showed that the valve near to the plant's water-washing operation was closed and leak-tight. Furthermore, process safety systems -- in place and operational -- would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident.

Based on several investigations, the safety systems in place could not have prevented a chemical reaction of this magnitude from causing a leak. In designing the plant's safety systems, a chemical reaction of this magnitude was not factored in for two reasons.

The tank's gas storage system was designed to prevent such a large amount of water from being inadvertently introduced into the system; and Process safety systems -- in place and operational -- would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident.

Contrary to allegations made by certain parties in various lawsuits, UCC did not design, construct or operate the Bhopal plant. And, most importantly, all of the decisions with respect to the plant and its design, construction, and operation were either made by UCIL or mandated by Government of India policies and directives.

In 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upheld a lower court's ruling that "UCC’s participation was limited and its involvement in plant operations terminated long before the accident … the UOI [Union of India] controlled the terms of the agreements and precluded UCC from exercising any authority to 'detail design, erect and commission the plant,' which was done independently over the period from 1972 to 1980 by UCIL process design engineers … The preliminary process design information furnished by UCC could not have been used to construct the plant. Construction required the detailed process design and engineering data prepared by hundreds of Indian engineers, process designers and sub-contractors..." Click here for the complete opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

The Bhopal plant was designed, built, owned and operated by UCIL, an Indian company in which UCC held just over half of the stock. Indian financial institutions and thousands of private investors in India held the rest of the stock. In 1994, UCC sold its entire interest in UCIL to Mcleod Russel India Limited, which renamed the company Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL). In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government, which owns and had been leasing the property to EIIL, took over the facility and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York concluded that UCC was not the entity responsible for any environmental pollution resulting from operation of the UCIL plant prior to the disaster. The Second Circuit concluded: "[M]any others living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity". Click here to view the complete opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

No. After the incident, UCIL completed one of the most single important remediation activities -- the transformation and removal of tens of thousands of pounds of methylisocyanate (MIC) from the plant. Click here and see page 7 in the Jackson Browning Report. The plant never resumed normal operations after the 1984 gas tragedy and, in the following years, the Indian government severely restricted access to the site. UCIL was only able to undertake clean-up work in the years just prior to the sale, and spent some $2 million on that effort, which included beginning construction of a secure landfill to hold the waste from two solar evaporation ponds on site. The central and state government authorities in India approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up work.

We understand that after UCC sold its stock in UCIL in 1994, EIIL continued the clean-up work and completed the construction of the secure landfill on site. In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government, which owns and had been leasing the property to EIIL, took over the facility and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation. In 2004, a Public Interest Litigation was filed and is currently before the State of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur. One of the claims made in the litigation -- against the Union of India, the State of Madhya Pradesh and private companies allegedly responsible -- seeks remediation of the plant site. (UCC is not involved in that litigation.) For additional information on this 2004 PIL, please see “UOI vs. Alok Pratap Singh: Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court” in the Bhopal Litigation in India section of this website.

The media reported in 2007 that the Supreme Court of India had directed the central and state governments to pay for collection of waste on the site and to have it landfilled or incinerated, as appropriate. While some of the waste had been landfilled, public interest groups again challenged the Court's incineration directive, as did the states where waste incineration facilities were located.

However, in 2012, the Supreme Court selected the Pithampur waste treatment storage and disposal facility (TSDF) in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar district as the most suitable facility for incinerating the waste. Though environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) claimed the facility failed to meet desired safety parameters, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) submitted an affidavit in 2014 verifying the suitability of the facility to carry out the incineration.

According to The Indian Express, 10 tons of trial waste were transferred to the site in July 2015 and the trial incineration was conducted over a five-day period in mid-August 2015. Operated by the Ramky Group Company, the TSDF was monitored by the CPCB, as well as private firms CVR Labs of Chennai and Vimta Lab of Hyderabad. The Express reported that officials associated with the trial said the levels of emissions and ambient air quality from the burning were within permissible limits, with the air quality being monitored at three locations in and around the facility, including a station representing Tarpura village adjacent to the facility.

The full report on the trial incineration results will be submitted to the Supreme Court, which will decide on how the rest of the waste at the site will be handled, said The Express, which also noted that officials expect the remaining waste (some 335 tons) to be burnt at the “same place, using the same technology and the same control parameters”.

The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by UCIL, an Indian company in which UCC held just over half of the stock. Indian financial institutions and thousands of private investors in India held the rest of the stock. In 1994, UCC sold its entire interest in UCIL to Mcleod Russel India Limited, which renamed the company Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL). In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government, which owns and had been leasing the property to EIIL, canceled the lease; took over the facility; and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation.

No. UCIL, an Indian company, managed and operated the Bhopal plant at the time of the gas leak. After the incident, UCIL completed one of the single most important remediation activities. Known as "Operation Faith", the initiative transformed and removed tens of thousands of pounds of methylisocyanate (MIC) from the plant. Click here and see page 7 in the Jackson Browning Report. In the years following the tragedy, the Indian government severely restricted access to the site. UCIL was only able to undertake clean-up work in the years just prior to the sale, and spent some $2 million on that effort, which included beginning construction of a secure landfill to hold the waste from two solar evaporation ponds on site. The central and state government authorities in India approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up work.

We understand that, after the sale of UCIL stock in 1994, EIIL continued the clean-up work and completed the construction of the secure landfill on site. In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government, which owns and had been leasing the property to Eveready, canceled the lease; took over the facility; and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation.

UCC did not design, construct or operate the Bhopal plant. And, most importantly, all of the decisions with respect to the plant and its design, construction, and operation were either made by UCIL or mandated by Government of India policies and directives.

At the insistence of the Government of India, UCC’s role in the project was very narrow and contractually defined. Pursuant to an arm’s-length contract with UCIL, which required Government of India approval, UCC provided process design packages for several units, but the design packages were nothing more than design starting points. They provided only general parameters -- such as the composition and flows of chemicals, temperatures, working pressures, certain information on materials of construction and the like. A plant cannot be constructed from process design packages. In the years after UCIL’s receipt of UCC’s process designs, UCIL made a vast number of choices, trade-offs and changes during the detail design, engineering and construction of the plant, and UCC’s process designs were changed in innumerable ways to suit UCIL’s operating philosophy and local conditions.

In 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upheld a lower court's ruling that "UCC’s participation was limited and its involvement in plant operations terminated long before the accident … the UOI [Union of India] controlled the terms of the agreements and precluded UCC from exercising any authority to 'detail design, erect and commission the plant,' which was done independently over the period from 1972 to 1980 by UCIL process design engineers … The preliminary process design information furnished by UCC could not have been used to construct the plant. Construction required the detailed process design and engineering data prepared by hundreds of Indian engineers, process designers and sub-contractors..." Click here for the complete 1987 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

Subsequently, in 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upheld U.S. District Court Judge John F. Keenan’s comprehensive decision of June 2012 in the Janki Bai Sahu et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., et al. (aka, Sahu I) case. Judge Keenan had unambiguously concluded that UCC is not liable for any environmental remediation or pollution-related claims made by residents near the Bhopal plant site in India; dismissed all claims against UCC and former Chairman Warren Anderson; and ruled that UCC had no liability related to the plant site. The Second Circuit concluded "... [M]any others living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity". Click here for the complete 2013 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

A separate case -- Jagarnath Sahu et al. v. UCC and Warren Anderson (aka, Sahu II) -- filed in 2007 in New York District Court sought damages to clean up six individual properties allegedly polluted by contaminants from the Bhopal plant, as well as the remediation of property in 16 colonies adjoining the plant. This suit, which had been stayed pending resolution of appeals in the Sahu I case, was the last remaining Bhopal-related case before U.S. Courts. In July 2014, Judge Keenan ruled that UCC was not liable for any ongoing pollution from the Bhopal chemical plant.

In May 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York affirmed the lower court ruling in Sahu II.

In July 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York rejected the plaintiffs' petition for certification of certain questions of state law and then, on Aug. 15, 2016, the same court rejected the petition of plaintiffs for a rehearing, letting stand the lower court decision that said UCC was not liable for any plant site pollution effects arising out of the Bhopal tragedy. This was the last case in the U.S. courts seeking damages related to the Bhopal plant, all of which have been dismissed.

No. UCIL, an Indian company, managed and operated the Bhopal plant from its startup to the time of the gas leak. After the incident, UCIL completed an important remediation activity -- the transformation and removal of tens of thousands of pounds of MIC from the plant. In the years following the tragedy, the Indian government severely restricted access to the site. UCIL was permitted to undertake clean-up work only in the years just prior to the UCC sale of its UCIL stock, and spent some $2 million on that effort, which included beginning construction of a secure landfill to hold the wastes from two, on-site solar evaporation ponds. The central and state government authorities in India approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up work.

It appears that after the sale of UCIL stock in 1994, the renamed UCIL -- now called Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL) -- continued the clean-up work and completed the construction of the secure landfill on the site. In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government, which owns and had been leasing the property to EIIL, took over the facility and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation.

A trial incineration of some waste from the Bhopal plant site was conducted in August 2015. Specific questions regarding this or any other remediation work are best directed to the Madhya Pradesh State Government and/or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

According to media reports, various groups have made assessments of the groundwater quality at the Bhopal site through the years, including a recent effort supervised by the State of Madhya Pradesh. For an overview of those studies, please see "Environmental Studies of the Bhopal Plant Site" on this website. Specific questions regarding these issues are best addressed by the organizations that conducted the studies and/or the Madhya Pradesh State Government.

No. Indian government authorities have publicly and repeatedly confirmed that no contamination of soil or groundwater outside the plant walls resulted from the MIC gas leak.

A report issued by the India's National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) in 1997 found soil contamination within the factory premises at three major areas that had been used as chemical disposal and treatment areas. However, the study found no evidence of groundwater contamination outside the plant and concluded that local water wells were not affected by plant disposal activities. UCC sold its stock in UCIL in 1994, and the state government took over responsibility for the site in 1998. If groundwater outside the plant is now contaminated after this length of time, it cannot under any circumstances be the responsibility of UCC.

Specific questions regarding these issues are best directed to organizations that have conducted environmental studies and the Madhya Pradesh State Government. For an overview of environmental studies, please see “Environmental Studies of the Bhopal Plant Site” on this website.

Because the government closed off the site from any and all operations following the gas release, UCIL was only able to undertake additional clean-up work in the years just prior to the 1994 sale and spent some $2 million on that effort, which included beginning construction of a secure landfill to hold the waste from two, on-site solar evaporation ponds. The central and state government authorities in India approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up work. We understand that, after UCC sold its stock in UCIL in 1994, the renamed company -- EIIL -- continued the clean-up work at the site and completed the construction of the secure landfill on the site. In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government, which owns and had been leasing the property to EIIL, cancelled the lease; took over the facility; and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation.

The media reported that a trial incineration of some waste from the Bhopal plant site was conducted in August 2015. Specific questions regarding this or any other remediation work are best directed to the Madhya Pradesh State Government and/or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

UCC did not own or operate the site. If the court responsible for directing clean-up efforts ultimately applies the "polluter pays" principle to a corporation, it would seem that legal responsibility would fall to UCIL (now called EIIL), which leased the land, operated the site and was a separate, publicly traded Indian company when the Bhopal tragedy occurred. In 1994, UCC sold its interest in UCIL with the approval of the Indian Supreme Court. EIIL remains a viable company today. The fact that UCC was not responsible for the operation of the Bhopal site was considered by the U.S. courts and confirmed. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York concluded that UCC was not the entity responsible for any environmental pollution resulting from operation of the UCIL plant. The Second Circuit concluded, "[M]any others living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity.”

While we are aware of conflicting claims being made by various groups and reported in the media, we have no first-hand knowledge of what chemicals, if any, may remain at the site and what impact, if any, they may be having on area groundwater.

It is important to note, however, that a 1998 study of drinking-water sources near the plant site by the MPPCB found some contamination that likely was caused by improper drainage of water and other sources of environmental pollution. The Control Board did not find any traces of chemicals linked to chemicals formerly used at the UCIL plant. Further, The Hindustan Times reported on April 29, 2006, that "A study by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad, has virtually debunked voluntary organisations' fear about contamination of water in and around Union Carbide plant …” We believe it is important for the Madhya Pradesh State Government to complete the remediation of the plant site. The state is in the best position to evaluate all scientific information that is available and make the right decision for Bhopal.

Specific questions regarding these issues are best directed to organizations that have conducted environmental studies and the Madhya Pradesh State Government. For an overview of environmental studies, please see “Environmental Studies of the Bhopal Plant Site” on this website.

Two lawsuits filed in New York Federal court in 2004 and 2007 have focused on site remediation and compensation for residents related to the alleged impact of pollution. In June 2012, a Federal court unambiguously concluded in the first of these cases, Janki Bai Sahu et al. v. UCC (aka, Sahu I), that neither UCC nor its former Chairman Warren Anderson are liable for any environmental remediation or pollution-related personal injury claims made by residents near the Bhopal plant site. In June 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upheld the 2012 court decision, stating: "[M]any others living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity".

A separate case -- Jagarnath Sahu et al v UCC and Warren Anderson (aka Sahu II) -- filed in 2007 in New York District Court sought damages to clean up six individual properties allegedly polluted by contaminants from the Bhopal plant, as well as the remediation of property in 16 colonies adjoining the plant. This suit, which had been stayed pending resolution of appeals in Sahu I case, was the last remaining Bhopal-related case before U.S. Courts. In July 2014, Judge Keenan ruled that UCC was not liable for any on-ongoing pollution from the Bhopal chemical plant.

In May 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York concluded the lower court ruling in Sahu II, which said that UCC was not liable for any pollution arising out of the disposition of wastes at the former Union Carbide India Limited plant site in Bhopal. Click here for the complete opinion of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

In June 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York rejected the plaintiffs' petition for certification of certain questions of state law and then, on Aug. 15, 2016, the same court rejected the petition of plaintiffs for a rehearing, letting stand the lower court decision that said UCC was not liable for any plant site pollution effects arising out of the Bhopal tragedy. Sahu II was the last case in the U.S. courts seeking damages related to the Bhopal plant, all of which have been dismissed.

Other pollution-related litigation is pending in India against various parties in the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the India Supreme Court. For additional information, please see "Bhopal Litigation in the U.S." and "Bhopal Litigation in India" pages on this website.

In 1989, UCC and UCIL entered into a $470 million legal settlement with the Indian Government, settling all claims arising from the incident. The Indian Supreme Court affirmed the settlement and described it as "just, equitable and reasonable." UCC and UCIL promptly paid the money to the Government of India. A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in 1999 asserting claims for personal injuries and property damage arising out the Bhopal gas disaster was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

Cases filed in New York Federal court in November 2004, and thereafter, have focused on site remediation and compensation for residents. In June 2012, a Federal court unambiguously concluded in the Sahu I case that neither UCC nor its former Chairman Warren Anderson are liable for any environmental remediation or pollution-related personal injury claims made by residents near the Bhopal plant site.

However, plaintiffs filed an appeal. In June 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upheld the 2012 court decision, stating: "... many others living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity".

A separate case -- Sahu II -- filed in 2007 in New York District Court sought damages to clean up six individual properties allegedly polluted by contaminants from the Bhopal plant, as well as the remediation of property in 16 colonies adjoining the plant. This suit, which had been stayed pending resolution of appeals in the Sahu I case, was the last remaining Bhopal-related case before U.S. Courts. In July 2014, Judge Keenan ruled that UCC was not liable for any ongoing pollution from the Bhopal chemical plant.

In May 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York affirmed the lower court ruling, which said that UCC was not liable for any pollution arising out of the disposition of wastes at the former UCIL plant site in Bhopal. This was the last case in the U.S. courts seeking damages related to the Bhopal plant, all of which have been dismissed. Click here for the complete opinion of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

In July 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York rejected the plaintiffs' petition for certification of certain questions of state law and then, on Aug. 15, 2016, the same court rejected the petition of plaintiffs for a rehearing, letting stand the lower court decision that said UCC was not liable for any plant site pollution effects arising out of the Bhopal tragedy. This was the last case in the U.S. courts seeking damages related to the Bhopal plant, all of which have been dismissed.

No. The American litigation was civil litigation. Judge Keenan's order and UCC's consent were with respect to civil jurisdiction in India -- not criminal jurisdiction. UCC did litigate and settle the civil claims arising from the Bhopal tragedy in the Indian civil courts. UCC is not subject to criminal jurisdiction in India and has not consented to it. UCC and Mr. Anderson were not required to appear in any criminal matters in India.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals noted in its 2006 decision upholding Judge John Keenan's rulings in the Bano case, UCC did not violate his order to consent to the civil jurisdiction of the Indian courts, which was imposed as a condition to the dismissal of earlier litigation in the United States based upon the 1984 gas release on the grounds of forum non conveniens, by not appearing in the criminal case in India. Click here for the complete opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

With regard to Bhopal litigation in India, all the key people from UCIL -- officers and those who actually ran the plant -- have appeared to face charges, which were reduced to a misdemeanor status. Neither UCC nor its officials are subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian court since they did not have any involvement in the operation of the plant. By requirement of the Government of India, the plant was designed, owned, operated and managed by UCIL and its employees.

No. The American litigation was civil litigation. Judge Keenan's order and UCC's consent were with respect to civil jurisdiction in India -- not criminal jurisdiction. UCC did litigate and settle the civil claims arising from the Bhopal tragedy in the Indian civil courts. UCC is not subject to criminal jurisdiction in India and has not consented to it. UCC was not required to appear in any criminal matters in India.

As the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York noted in its 2006 decision upholding Judge John Keenan's rulings in the Bano case, UCC did not violate his order to consent to the civil jurisdiction of the Indian courts, which was imposed as a condition to the dismissal of earlier litigation in the United States based upon the 1984 gas release on the grounds of forum non conveniens, by not appearing in the criminal case in India. Click here for the complete 2006 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

No. The charges against UCC were severed from the remaining charges against UCIL and the Indian individuals associated with it, each of whom were actively prosecuted. UCC was not tried "in absentia."

No. UCC had no role whatsoever in the operation of the Bhopal plant. By requirement of the Government of India, the plant was operated totally by employees of UCIL.

In 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upheld a lower court's ruling that "UCC’s participation was limited and its involvement in plant operations terminated long before the accident … the UOI (Union of India) controlled the terms of the agreements and precluded UCC from exercising any authority to 'detail design, erect and commission the plant', which was done independently over the period from 1972 to 1980 by UCIL process design engineers … The preliminary process design information furnished by UCC could not have been used to construct the plant. Construction required the detailed process design and engineering data prepared by hundreds of Indian engineers, process designers and sub-contractors ..." Click here for the complete 1987 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

Subsequently, in 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upheld Judge Keenan’s comprehensive decision of June 2012 that had unambiguously concluded that UCC is not liable for any environmental remediation or pollution-related claims made by residents near the Bhopal plant site in India; dismissed all claims against UCC and former Chairman Anderson; and ruled that UCC had no liability related to the plant site. Click here for the complete 2013 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

By filing a Curative Petition to reopen the settlement of the Bhopal gas disaster, the Government of India had, in effect, reneged on an agreement it negotiated and signed with UCC and UCIL in 1989. The settlement had been reviewed and approved by the highest court in the country, and all parties should be able to rely upon it as a final disposition of potential liabilities related to that event. It is difficult to see how attempts could be made to reopen such a thoroughly reviewed settlement.

The 1984 gas leak in Bhopal was a terrible tragedy that continues to evoke strong emotions. But allowing these emotions to blur the line of rationality and absolve the filter of logic was wrong.

India, as a country committed to justice and the rule of law, needed to honor the rule of law’s finality and the integrity of their legally-binding agreements.

We expected the Supreme Court of India to demonstrate its continued commitment to these principles when it considerd the Government of India’s Curative Petition.

The Government of India’s filing of a Curative Petition sent a very troubling message to the rest of the world, was unprecedented and, in effect, reneged on an agreement it negotiated and signed with UCC and UCIL in 1989. The settlement had been reviewed and approved by the highest court in the country, and all parties should be able to rely upon it as a final disposition of potential liabilities related to that event.

UCC opposes any attempt to invalidate the original settlement arrived at by the Government of India, UCC and UCIL in 1989.

It’s important to remember that, in directing a final settlement of all Bhopal litigation in the amount of $470 million in 1989, the Supreme Court of India reviewed all U.S. and Indian court filings, applicable law and relevant facts, and an assessment of the victims’ needs. The Court also noted the settlement award was much larger than any previous damage award in India, and was $120 million more than plaintiffs’ lawyers had told U.S. courts was fair.

Furthermore, the Indian Supreme Court also addressed in its 1991 examination of the decision what appears to be one of the central points upon which critics have based their calls for re-opening the settlement. That is, the Supreme Court required that the Government of India make up for any shortfall in the settlement amount (See page 682, paragraph 198 of the Indian Supreme Court’s 1991 ruling), and to acquire a group medical insurance policy to cover 100,000 persons who might later develop symptoms shown to have resulted from being exposed during the gas release. (See pages 684-686, paragraphs 205-208, of the Indian Supreme Court’s 1991 ruling.)

Therefore, the Government of India is the party responsible for paying any additional sums that might be required -- not UCC.

• Click here for Part 1 of the court's decision.
• Click here for Part 2 of the court's decision.

Because in 2007, when the India Supreme Court rejected attempts to reopen the 1989 settlement for the second time, the proponents to reopening the 1989 settlement at that time used the very same grounds that are set forth in the curative petition. The India Supreme Court held in 2007 that “it cannot be done and the said issue has been decided by this court.”

It is instructive (and it was entirely appropriate) that in responding to that request to reopen, the Government of India opposed reopening the 1989 settlement, stating in an affidavit dated Oct. 26, 2006, that “the validity of the settlement by no stretch of interpretation can be questioned at this stage as each and every claimant has got compensation as per law and his entitlement,” that “by no logic and reason is it open to say even for a moment that the justness or determination [of compensation] is impaired,” and that “[t]he application filed by the applicants is frivolous and may be dismissed with heavy costs.”

Nothing had changed that would justify the Government of India's change in position.

UCC strongly disagreed with the Government of India’s demand to have UCC pay anything toward the clean up of the Bhopal site. Some have tried unsuccessfully to litigate this issue in the U.S., with cases filed in New York Federal court in November 2004, and thereafter, focusing on site remediation and compensation for residents. In June 2012, a Federal court unambiguously concluded in Sahu I that neither UCC nor its retired Chairman Warren Anderson is liable for any environmental remediation or pollution-related personal injury claims made by residents near the Bhopal plant site.

In June 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upheld the 2012 court decision, stating: "... many others living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity".

A separate case (Sahu II) -- filed in 2007 in New York District Court -- sought damages to clean up six individual properties allegedly polluted by contaminants from the Bhopal plant, as well as the remediation of property in 16 colonies adjoining the plant. In July 2014, Judge Keenan ruled that UCC was not liable for any ongoing pollution from the Bhopal chemical plant. In May 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upheld Judge Keenan's decision and ruled that UCC was not liable for any pollution arising out of the disposition of wastes at the former UCIL plant site in Bhopal. This was the last case in the U.S. courts seeking damages related to the Bhopal plant, all of which have been dismissed. Click here for the complete opinion of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

No. the Supreme Court of India has already spoken to any potential need for additional funds. In its 1991 reaffirmation of the 1989 Bhopal settlement, the Court required the Government of India to:

Make up for any shortfall in the settlement account; (See page 682, paragraph 198, of the Indian Supreme Court's 1991 ruling).

Acquire a medical insurance policy to cover 100,000 people who might later develop symptoms shown to have resulted from being exposed during the gas release (See pages 684-686, paragraphs 205-208 of the Indian Supreme Court's 1991 ruling).

In 2006, the Government of India filed an affidavit with the India Supreme Court asserting that the settlement was appropriate and reasonable and should not be revisited. In a 2007 decision, the India Supreme Court agreed with this view. At that time, it was noted that the actual disposition amount distributed to individuals and families had, in fact, been higher than prescribed, with no new claimants stepping forward.

We understood there were virtually no new facts to consider since this issue was considered in 2007. In fact, we understood the Curative Petition showed that the additional settlement funds being sought were based on a large number of “minor- or no-injury” claims. This is a category which – according to the Government of India’s 2006 affidavit – included “mere presence” in an affected part of the city, without physical injury.

In its 1991 examination of the 1989 Bhopal settlement, the India Supreme Court required the Government of India to make up for any shortfall in the settlement account and also acquire a medical insurance policy to cover 100,000 people who might later develop symptoms shown to have resulted from being exposed during the gas release.

However, there was no shortfall. The settlement fund was sufficient to compensate all claimants double the amounts the Government of India itself set as fair compensation. Therefore, any questions regarding additional compensation for those who died, sustained injuries or continue to suffer health effects as a result of the Bhopal tragedy should be directed to the Government of India.

Responsibility for the clean-up of the Bhopal site lies with the Madhya Pradesh State Government (MPSG). In 1998, the MPSG, which owns and had been leasing the property to UCIL, took over the facility and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation. The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers announced on Aug. 5, 2010, that the cleanup would be undertaken and completed by the state by Dec. 31, 2010, but that has not taken place.

We understood this proposal to be incremental.

None whatsoever. The Curative Petition is contrary to law and due process.

The final determination was made in 1989 and the adequacy of the settlement has since been re-affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court in 1991, 2007 and 2023. We expected and had every confidence that the India Supreme Court would continue to adhere to its long standing tradition of comporting with the rule of law and due process.

In dismissing the Curative Petition, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the solemnity of the 1989 settlement, as it previously did in 2007, and has again demonstrated that the settlement between the Government of India and UCC, as well as its then subsidiary, Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), is -- as a matter of law -- fair, final and irrevocable.

Decades after the tragedy, this terrible event continues to evoke strong emotions. The Supreme Court's action helped reinforce the global perception of India as a nation committed to the rule of law and the integrity of legally binding agreements.