In the early hours of December 3, 1984, methylisocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from a production plant owned, managed and operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in the central India city of Bhopal. According to government figures, approximately 5,200 people died and several thousand others suffered permanent or partial disabilities.
Overview of Bhopal Tragedy
The 1984 gas leak in Bhopal was a terrible tragedy that continues to evoke strong emotions even decades later. In the wake of the gas release, Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and its then-chairman Warren Anderson worked diligently to provide aid to the victims and attempted to establish a process to resolve their claims. All claims arising out of the release were settled in 1989 at the explicit direction and with the approval of the Supreme Court of India by means of a settlement agreement between the Government of India (GOI) and UCC and UCIL. In 1991, and again in 2007, the Supreme Court of India upheld the fairness and adequacy of the settlement in response to court challenges from non-governmental organizations.
The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by UCIL, an Indian company in which UCC held just over half the stock. Other stockholders included Indian financial institutions and thousands of private investors in India. UCIL designed, built, managed and operated the plant using Indian consultants and workers. In 1994, UCC sold its entire stake in UCIL to Mcleod Russel India Limited of Calcutta, and UCIL was renamed Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL). As a result of the sale of its shares in UCIL, UCC retained no interest in the Bhopal site. With the approval of the India Supreme Court, proceeds from the UCIL sale were placed in a trust intended exclusively to fund a hospital in Bhopal to provide specialist care to victims of the tragedy.
Because the Indian government closed off the site from any and all operations following the gas release, UCIL was only able to undertake clean-up work in the years just prior to the UCC's sale of its stock in 1994, and spent some $2 million on that effort. Indian central and state government authorities approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up. Following the sale, we understand that EIIL continued some clean-up work. In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government, which owned and had been leasing the property to EIIL -- and still owns the property today -- cancelled EIIL's lease, 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. For additional information, please see a page entitled "Remediation (Clean Up) of the Bhopal Plant Site." Specific questions regarding that work, or any other site remediation work, are best directed to Madhya Pradesh State Government and/or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
In 1986, UCC filed a lengthy court document in India detailing the findings of its scientific and legal investigations into the cause of the gas release. Click here to view the Jackson Browning Report.
Engineering consulting firm, Arthur D. Little, Inc., conducted a thorough investigation and reached the same conclusion. Click here to view the Arthur D. Little Report.
A UCC investigation team arrived in Bhopal within days of the incident but could not begin its investigation because the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had taken control of and sealed the plant; seized control of the plant’s records; and prohibited interviews of plant employees on duty the night of the incident. What was known was that the methylisocyanate (MIC) unit had been shut down six weeks before the incident, and the MIC storage Tank 610 -- from which the gas was released -- had been isolated at that time.
The UCC team was only permitted to take samples of the residue in Tank 610 and, after several months of extensive analyses, issued a report in March 1985. UCC’s initial investigation showed that a large volume of water had been introduced into the MIC tank and 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. The incident occurred despite the fact that the system had been designed and operated to keep out even trace amounts of water and that no water had ever entered any of the tanks during the five years the plant had been in operation.
For more than a year, the CBI prohibited interviews with plant employees and denied meaningful access to plant records. However, in December 1985, a U.S. magistrate ordered the Government of India to provide UCC with copies of plant records that had been seized. Moreover, the Government of India could no longer restrict UCC’s access to plant employees while it was before a U.S. court seeking discovery from UCC.
UCC launched an aggressive effort to identify the cause. With access to employees and plant records, UCC investigators conducted more than 70 interviews in India and examined some 70,000 pages of plant records and documentation that the Indian government had reluctantly released. UCC's follow-up investigation confirmed its initial conclusion: 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.
Some two-and-a-half years after the tragedy, UCC filed a lengthy court document in India detailing the findings of its scientific and legal investigations: The cause of the disaster was 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 on Preventing Major Chemical Accidents in London, U.K., in 1988. Click here to view the Arthur D. Little Report. Early accounts of the disaster that focused on the Government if India’s theory that water-washing caused the accident subsequently were disproved.
About Union Carbide India Limited and Plant History
UCIL was a diversified manufacturing company incorporated in 1934. UCC became one of the first U.S. companies to invest in India when UCC acquired shares in UCIL in 1934. Employing approximately 9,000 people at the height of its business operations, UCIL operated 14 plants in five divisions. UCIL's annual sales were nearly $200 million and UCIL shares were publicly traded on the Calcutta Stock Exchange, with UCC owning just over half the shares. The other stockholders included Indian financial institutions and thousands of private investors in India.
Situated in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, the Bhopal plant was built in 1969 and a production facility was added in 1979. The plant produced pesticides for use in India to help the country’s agricultural sector increase its productivity and contribute more significantly to meeting the food needs of one of the world's most heavily populated regions. The plant never resumed normal operations after the December 1984 gas leak.
The design, engineering and construction of the Bhopal plant was a UCIL project from beginning to end. The project took eight years to complete (from 1972 to 1980). It involved hundreds of Indian engineers and designers from UCIL and major Indian engineering firms, dozens of Indian subcontractors and thousands of Indian construction workers. UCC did not design, construct or operate the Bhopal plant. All of the decisions with respect to the plant and its design, construction, and operation were made either by UCIL or mandated by Government of India policies and directives.
As found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York in its 1987 decision dismissing the Bhopal gas disaster litigation in the U.S.: “In short, the plant has been constructed and managed by Indians in India.” The Court found that “UCC’s participation was limited and its involvement in plant operations terminated long before the [1984] accident.” With respect to alleged pollution at the Bhopal plant site, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded in its 2013 decision that individuals “living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from the 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 that UCC is not that entity.”
In 1994, UCC sold its entire stake in UCIL to Mcleod Russel India Limited of Calcutta, which renamed the company Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL) -- a company that continues to exist today as one of India’s leading battery and flashlight manufacturers. The proceeds from the UCIL sale -- some $90 million -- were placed in a trust and exclusively used to fund a hospital in Bhopal to provide specialist care to victims of the tragedy.
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 remediation. Click here to view the MPSG press release.
Bhopal Plant History and Ownership
UCIL’s Bhopal plant was a vast chemical complex containing miles of complicated piping and hundreds of specialized reactors, pressure vessels, heat exchangers and other equipment and employed more than 1,000 workers. The plant began operations in the late 1960s on a site leased from the Madhya Pradesh State Government, which selected the location.
At the time, the area surrounding the site was removed from the city and very lightly populated. However, in the ensuing years, the authorities encouraged thousands of people to settle near the plant and distributed “pattas” granting land rights to the hutment dwellers around the factory.
At the time of the gas release, the plant site contained about 55 acres, and an additional, non-contiguous 35-acre site, also leased from Madhya Pradesh State Government, was utilized for solar evaporation ponds (SEPs). On July 7, 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government terminated the leases of the plant site and SEPs. Click here to view the MPSG press release.
Design and Construction of the Plant
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 made either by UCIL or mandated by Government of India policies and directives. (See 1987 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling below.) 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 the phosgene, methylisocyanate (MIC) and Sevin units (although UCIL decided not to use UCC’s Sevin process). The process design packages that UCC provided 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. UCC had no further design role. Much of the technology for the Bhopal plant was developed by UCIL itself (the naphthol process and Sevin process) or acquired from Stauffer Chemical Corporation (the carbon monoxide process).
The plant began operations in 1969 as a formulations plant; that is, UCIL imported the chemical carbaryl from UCC, formulated it into the insecticide brand products (such as Sevin and Temik) and sold the formulated products to distributors in India. The formulation process did not involve the manufacture of any chemicals, such as MIC, by UCIL in India. Rather, the imported carbaryl was combined with other materials to make various end products.
That arrangement benefited UCIL because it was able to sell the formulated insecticide to a growing agricultural market in India without having to make the large capital investment necessary to build a major chemical plant. However, from the time UCIL first began to import carbaryl from UCC's plant in Institute, West Virginia, the Government of India pressured UCIL to “back-integrate;” that is, to build a chemical plant capable of manufacturing carbaryl from indigenous raw material, in order to save the foreign exchange paid for those imports. The mechanism to enforce back-integration was the Government of India’s control over import licenses. To import carbaryl into India, the Government of India required UCIL to obtain annually a license that included a condition that UCIL develop and implement plans to build a fully back-integrated chemical plant in India, which included the manufacture of MIC. UCIL’s choice: either back-integrate or abandon the sizable market it had developed for insecticides in India.
In 1977, UCIL started the Sevin unit and ceased importing carbaryl. From 1977-1980, carbaryl was produced in the Sevin unit from MIC and naphthol imported in 55-gallon drums from UCC's Institute, West Virginia, plant. The MIC unit started in February 1980 and importation of MIC ceased. From 1980-1984, the only material imported into the plant from the U.S. was naphthol. (UCIL completed a naphthol unit in 1977, but all attempts to operate it were unsuccessful, so the importation continued from the U.S.)
Government of India’s Role
Laws, regulations and policies generated by the Government of India and Madhya Pradesh State Government permeated every aspect of the Bhopal facility from its inception. No action of any significance was taken without the approval of the Government of India or Madhya Pradesh State Government.
The Government of India required UCIL to maximize Indian involvement in the design, procurement, construction and operation of the plant and to minimize foreign involvement of any kind. The Government of India restricted the use of imported materials and foreign consultants, and, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York confirmed in 1987, "precluded UCC from exercising any authority to ‘detail design, erect and commission the plant’."
The Government of India closely monitored the progress of the plant, required detailed periodic reports and approved plans and drawings, including the MIC manufacturing facility and storage tanks, as well as the UCIL-designed waste disposal systems for the treatment and disposal of wastes, which also were approved by the Madhya Pradesh State Government authorities. The thrust of numerous Government of India policies was to completely “Indianize” the project.
In short:
- The plant had been constructed and managed by Indians in India.
- No Americans were employed at the plant at the time of the accident. From 1980-84, more than 1,000 Indians were employed at the plant -- but only one American was employed there and he left in 1982.
- No Americans visited the plant for more than one year prior to the incident. And,
During the 5-year period before, communications between the plant and the U.S. were almost non-existent.
Chronology, updated November 2023
1984
Dec 3-The Bhopal Gas Tragedy
Shortly after midnight, methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leaks from a tank at the UCIL Bhopal plant. According to the state government of Madhya Pradesh, about 5,200 people die and several thousand other individuals experience permanent and partial disabilities.
Dec 4-Immediate Action
Word of the disaster is received at UCC headquarters in Connecticut. Chairman and CEO Warren Anderson, together with a technical team, depart to India to assist the government in dealing with the incident. Upon arrival, Anderson is placed under house arrest and urged by the Indian government to leave the country within 24 hours.
UCC organizes a team of international medical experts, as well as supplies and equipment, to work with the local Bhopal medical community.
The UCC technical team begins assessing the cause of the gas leak.
Dec 14-Carbide Chairman Testifies Before U.S. Congress
Testifying before Congress, Carbide Chairman and CEO Warren Anderson stresses UCC's commitment to safety and promises to take actions to ensure that a similar incident "cannot happen again."
1985
Feb-Interim Relief
UCC establishes a fund for victims of the tragedy -- the (UCC) Employees' Bhopal Relief Fund -- that collects more than $120,000.
UCC sends more medical equipment to Bhopal.
Mar-Study Launched
UCC launches a disaster program to study the effects of over-exposure to MIC.
Bhopal Gas Leak Act
Government of India enacts the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act that enables the Government of India to act as the legal representative of the victims in claims arising from or related to the Bhopal disaster.
Cause of the Incident
UCC Technical team reports that a large volume of water was introduced into the MIC tank and triggered a reaction that resulted in the gas release. Independently, a committee of experts for the Indian government arrives at the same conclusion.
Apr-UCC Offers $7 Million Interim Relief
UCC offers $5 million in relief for victims before the U.S. District Court, bringing the total to date to $7 million.
Government of India rejects UCC relief.
Government of India rejects UCC offers of aid for Bhopal victims.
June-Additional Aid
UCC funds participation of Indian medical experts in meetings to obtain information and the latest medical treatment techniques for victims.
July-Additional Analysis
Core samples confirm water triggered the reaction led to the gas release.
1986
Jan-UCC Funds Hospital
UCC offers $10 million to the Indian government for building a hospital to aid the victims in Bhopal.
Mar-UCC Proposes $350 Million as Settlement for Victims and Families
UCC proposes a settlement amount of $350 million that will generate a fund for Bhopal victims of between $500-600 million over 20 years. Plaintiffs' U.S. attorneys endorse amount.
May-Bhopal Litigation Transferred to India
U.S. District Court Judge transfers all Bhopal litigation to India. Decision is appealed.
1987
Jan-U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Transfer of Litigation to India
The court rules that UCIL is a separate entity, owned, managed and operated exclusively by Indian citizens in India.
Mar-Government of India Closes Vocational Technical Center
The Government of India closes and razes the Bhopal Technical and Vocational Training Center built by Arizona State University after determining that UCC supplied funds for the project.
Aug-UCC Announces Humanitarian Relief
UCC offers an additional $4.6 million in humanitarian interim relief for immediate rehabilitation of Bhopal victims.
1988
Jan-Dec Litigation in India
Throughout 1988, arguments and appeals take place before the Indian Courts regarding compensation for the victims. In November, the Supreme Court of India asks the Government of India and UCC to reach a settlement, and tells both sides to "start with a clean slate."
May-New Evidence on Causation
Independent investigation by the engineering and consulting firm Arthur D. Little, Inc., concludes that the gas leak could only have been caused by sabotage; someone intentionally connected a water hose to the gas storage tank and caused a massive chemical reaction.
1989
Feb-Final Settlement at $470 Million
The Supreme Court of India directs a final settlement of all Bhopal litigation in the amount of $470 million, to be paid by March 31, 1989. Both the Government of India and UCC accept the court's direction. UCC pays $425 million; UCIL pays the rupee equivalent of $45 million (including $5 million of interim relief previously paid).
UCC Makes Full Payment
Within 10 days of the order, UCC and UCIL make full payment of the $470 million to the Government of India.
May-Supreme Court of India Renders Opinion
The Supreme Court, in a lengthy opinion, explains the rationale for the settlement and emphasizes that the compensation levels provided for in the settlement are substantially higher than those ordinarily payable under Indian law.
Dec-Government of India To Act on Behalf of Victims
The Supreme Court upholds the validity of the "Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act of 1985" that authorized the Government of India to act on behalf of the Bhopal gas leak victims.
1990
Jan/Dec-Supreme Court of India Proceedings Aim to Overturn Settlement
Hearings are held throughout year on activist petitions to overturn the settlement agreement.
Nov-State Government Prepares List of Victims To Be Compensated
The State Government of Madhya Pradesh submits to the Supreme Court of India the completed categorization of the claims of all of the victims. The State determines that, in addition to the victims who suffered various levels of disabilities, the incident resulted in 3,828 deaths.
Dec-Supreme Court Hearings Conclude
Court concludes review of petitions seeking to overturn settlement.
1991
Oct-Supreme Court Confirms the Settlement and Closes Legal Proceedings
The Supreme Court of India upholds the civil settlement of $470 million in its entirety and sets aside portion of settlement that quashed criminal prosecutions that were pending at the time of settlement. The Court also:
- Requires 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;
- Requires Government of India to make up any shortfall, however unlikely, in settlement fund;
- Gives directions concerning the administration of settlement fund;
- Dismisses all outstanding petitions seeking review of settlement; and
- Requests UCC and UCIL to voluntarily fund capital and operating costs of a hospital in Bhopal for eight years, estimated at approximately $17 million, to be built on land donated by the state government.
UCC and UCIL agree to fund the hospital, as requested.
1992
Apr-UCC Sets Up Trust Fund
UCC announces plans to sell its 50.9 percent interest in UCIL.
UCC establishes charitable trust to ensure its share of the funding to build a hospital in Bhopal and fund operations for up to eight years.
1993
Oct-U.S. Supreme Court Denies Hearing on Legal Standing
The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear appeal of lower court, thereby affirming that Bhopal victims may not sue for damages in U.S. courts.
1994
Apr-UCC To Sell Stake in UCIL
Supreme Court of India allows UCC to sell all its shares in UCIL so that assets can be used to build Bhopal hospital.
Nov-UCC Completes Sale
UCC completes the sale of its 50.9 percent interest in UCIL to Mcleod Russel India Limited of Calcutta.
Dec-UCC Fulfills Initial Commitment
UCC provides initial $20 million to charitable trust for Bhopal hospital.
1995-1999
Charitable Trust Builds Hospital
Hospital charitable trust begins facility construction in October 1995.
UCC provides approximately $90 million from the sale of all its UCIL stock.
By 1999, the trust has $100 million. Building is completed and physicians and medical staff are being selected. The hospital will have facilities for the treatment of eye, lung and heart problems.
2001
Hospital Opens to the Public
The Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, funded largely by proceeds from UCC sale of all its UCIL stock, begins treating patients.
2004
July-Supreme Court of India Orders Release of Remaining Settlement Funds to Victims
Fifteen years after reaching settlement, the Supreme Court of India orders the Government of India to release all additional settlement funds to the victims. News reports indicate that there is approximately $327 million in the fund as a result of earned interest from money remaining after all claims had been paid.
2005
Apr-Supreme Court of India Extends Deadline For Release of Remaining Settlement Funds
The Supreme Court of India grants a request from the Welfare Commission for Bhopal Gas Victims and extends to April 30, 2006, the distribution of the rest of the settlement funds by the Welfare Commission. News reports indicate that approximately $390 million remains in the fund as a result of earned interest.
Dec-Court Dismisses 2 Claims in Janki Bai Sahu Case
U.S. Federal District Court dismisses two of three claims in Janki Bai Sahu case; that is, damages for alleged personal injuries from exposure to contaminated water and remediation of the former UCIL plant site. (See Nov. 2006 for information on third claim.) Case originally was filed in November 2004.
2006
Aug-U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Dismissal of 8-Year-Old Bano Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upholds the dismissal of the remaining claims in the case of Bano vs. Union Carbide Corporation, thereby denying plaintiffs' motions for class certification and claims for property damages and remediation of the Bhopal plant site by UCC. The ruling reaffirms UCC's long-held positions and finally puts to rest -- both procedurally and substantively -- the issues raised in the class action complaint first filed against UCC in 1999 by Haseena Bi and several organizations representing the residents of Bhopal, India.
Sep-Bhopal Welfare Commission Reports All Initial Compensation Claims, Revised Petitions Cleared
Indian media report states the "registrar in the office of Welfare Commissioner ... said that all cases of initial compensation claims by victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy have been cleared ... With clearance of initial compensation claims and revision petitions, no case is pending ..."
Oct-Madhya Pradesh State Government To Prepare Drinking Water, Healthcare, Environmental Rehabilitation Plan
Indian media report says the state government of Madhya Pradesh will "chalk out an action plan in the next two months for providing drinking water, adequate healthcare and economic and environmental rehabilitation to survivors of the Bhopal gas tragedy ..."
Nov-U.S. Federal District Court Dismisses Last Claim in Sahu Case
Federal District Court dismisses remaining claim in Janki Bai Sahu case (aka Sahu I), which sought to hold UCC liable for the acts of UCIL. Case originally was filed in November 2004. Two other claims associated with the case were dismissed in December 2005.
Dec-Appeal Filed in Janki Bai Sahu Case
Plaintiffs file appeal in the case before the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.
2007
Mar-New Class Action Lawsuit Filed in New York Federal Court
Jagarnath Sahu et al v. UCC and Warren Anderson seeks 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. Suit has been stayed pending resolution of appeal in Janki Bai Sahu case. (See decision in June 2013 below.)
Apr-1989 Settlement Reaffirmed
Indian Supreme Court again reaffirms adequacy and finality of 1989 settlement.
2008
May-Arguments Heard in Janki Bai Sahu Appeals Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York hears oral arguments in Janki Bai Sahu appeals case. Original case filed in November 2004. Two claims associated with case were dismissed in December 2005 and the last remaining claim was dismissed in November 2006.
Nov-Sahu Appeals Case Remanded to District Court for Further Limited Activity
U.S. Court of Appeals sends back the Janki Bai Sahu case to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan for limited further activity based strictly on procedural grounds, and does not discuss the merits of the case or the merits of the trial judge's ruling of dismissal.
2009
Feb-Court Rejects Mediation Request in Janki Bai Sahu Case
U.S. Federal District Court in New York declines to order mediation in the Janki Bai Sahu case as requested by plaintiffs. The ruling affirms UCC’s position that after years of court proceedings, this case in now in its final stages and, given the time commitments already made by the courts, the Sahu case should complete its course through the courts.
2010
Feb-Court Rejects Disqualification Request in Janki Bai Sahu Case
A motion made by the plaintiffs in the Sahu case to disqualify the judge hearing the case in District Court is rejected by the court.
Dec-Union of India Files Curative Petition in Supreme Court of India
The UOI seeks to require UCC to reopen the 1989 Bhopal settlement to enhance the settlement amount; reimburse state and central governments for relief and rehabilitation expenses incurred; and pay a sum for remediating the plant site.
2011
Feb-UCC Responds to Union of India's Curative Petition Filing
UCC demonstrates that the UOI's submissions were legally and factually without merit; asserts that the Indian courts lacked jurisdiction over UCC; and states that the Curative Petition is legally improper.
April-UCC Motion in Janki Bai Sahu Case
UCC submits a motion for summary judgment in the Sahu case.
2012
June-U.S. Court Rules UCC Not Liable in Janki Bai Sahu Case
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, unambiguously concludes that neither UCC nor its retired Chairman Warren Anderson is liable for any environmental remediation or pollution-related claims made by residents near the Bhopal plant site.
Nov-Appeal Filed in Janki Bai Sahu Case
Plaintiffs in the Janki Bai Sahu case file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.
2013
June-U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds 2012 Ruling That UCC Not Liable in Janki Bai Sahu Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York upholds a 2012 judgment of the district court that UCC was not liable for any environmental remediation or pollution-related personal injury claims made by residents near the Bhopal plant site in India.
2014
July-U.S. Court Rules UCC Not Liable for Property Damage Claims in Jagarnath Sahu Case
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, concludes in the Jagarnath Sahu et al v. UCC case (Sahu II) that neither UCC nor Warren Anderson could be sued for ongoing contamination from the Bhopal chemical plant. This suit was originally filed in 2007, but hearings on it were stayed pending resolution of the Janki Bai Sahu case (Sahu I), which was dismissed in 2013. Plaintiffs file an appeal.
Sep-Retired UCC Chairman Warren M. Anderson Dies
Retired UCC Chairman Warren M. Anderson dies on Sept. 29 at the age of 92. Mr. Anderson joined UCC in 1945 and was involved in the corporation’s chemicals and plastics businesses, as well as it industrial gases, metals and carbon businesses during his 44 years with UCC. He was elected chairman of the board and chief executive officer in 1982. He retired in 1986.
2015
Aug-Incineration of Trial Waste from Bhopal Plant
The Pithampur waste treatment storage and disposal facility in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar district incinerates 10 tons of trial waste from the Bhopal plant site. Officials state the levels of emissions and ambient air quality from the burning are within permissible limits. A full report on the trial incineration results will be submitted to the Supreme Court. Specific questions regarding that work, or any other site remediation work, are best directed to Madhya Pradesh State Government and/or the Central Pollution Control Board.
2016
May-U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds July 2014 Judgment That UCC Not Liable for Pollution Effects in Jagarnath Sahu Case
The U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York reaffirms a lower court ruling in the Jagarnath Sahu v. UCC case (aka, Sahu II), which said that 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.
June-Plaintiffs File Petitions in Jagarnath Sahu Case
Plaintiffs file two petitions with regard to the May decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.
July-U.S. Court of Appeals Rejects Plaintiffs' Petition
U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York rejects a petition by the plaintiffs' attorney for certification of certain questions of state law.
Aug-U.S. Court of Appeals Rejects Appeal for Rehearing
The same court rejects the appeal of plaintiffs for a rehearing of their appeal, and lets stand a lower court decision that 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.
2023
Jan-Supreme Court of India Holds Hearings on the Curative Petition
Supreme Court of India holds three days (Jan. 10-12) of hearings on the Curative Petition. On the final day, the Court dismisses a Transfer Petition submitted by the Government of India.
Mar-Supreme Court of India dismisses Union of India's Curative Petition
Supreme Court of India completely dismisses the Union of India's Curative Petition through which it sought to reopen the 1989 Bhopal settlement.