Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 19 and 21-Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act, 1985-Whether constitutionally valid. 

Preamble and Articles 38, 39 and 39A-Doctrine of 'parens patriae'- Applicability of Exercise of sovereign power-Limitations. Articles 21, 48A and 5J(g)-Human right - State's obligation to protect - Need for enacting law protecting the constitutional rights of citizens - Evolving standards highlighted by clauses 9 and 13 of U.N. Code of Conduct on transnational corporations.

Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act, 1985: Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11-Constitutional validity of: Central Govt. representing victims suit against multinational company-Govt. holding share in company-Govt. alleged to be joint tort feasor-Whether competent to represent victims-Whether principles of natural justice violated.

Settlement of claims before court-Pre-decisional and post decisional notice-Need for-Effect of non-issue of notice. 

Power conferred on Central Govt. to represent vidims in suit-  Divesting individual rights to legal remedy-Procedure followed - Whether consistent with the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 

Interim Compensation-Payment of Precautionary measures - Need for-Guidelines for the future-Immediate relief to victims- Setting up of a Tribunal-Creation of Industrial Disaster Furid-  Mooted. 

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 8 and Order 23 Rule JR-Procedure followed under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act, 1985-Central Govt. representing victims in suit - Divesting individual rights to legal remedy-Whether procedure standard and fair-Whether violative of principles of natural justice.

Administrative Law-Principles of Natural Justice: Act of Parliament within legislative competence-applicability of the principles. 

Pre-decisional notice not given-Effect of Central Government representing victims in a suit against a multinational company-Govt. having shares in company-Alleged tort-feasor-Whether competent to represent victims-Doctrine that no man shall be judge of his own cause-Doctrine of necessity-Doctrine of 'de facto validity'-Doctrine of bona fide representation-Applicability of. 

Statutory construction: Constructive intuition approach-statute to be read purposefully and meaningfully-Regard to be had to the spirit of the statute and the mischief intended to be cured by it. 

Law of Torts: Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act, 1985-Grant of interim relief to the victims-Whether inherent in the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder-Liability of tort-feasor - Whether limited to civil liability to compensation-whether includes criminal liability to punitive damages also. 

Union Carbide (India) Ltd. (UCIL) is a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), a New York Corporation. UCIL was incorporated in India in 1954. 50.99% of its shareholding was with UCC and 22% of the shares were held by Life Insurance Corporation of India and Unit Trust of India. UCIL owned a chemical plant in Bhopal for the manufacture of pesticides using Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) a highly toxic gas.

On the night between 2nd and 3rd December, 1984, there was a massive escape of lethal gas from the MIC Storage tank at the Bhopal plant resulting in the tragic death of about 3,000 people. Thousands of people suffered injuries. The environment also got polluted, badly affecting the flora and the fauna.

On behalf of the victims, many suits were filed in various District Courts in the United States of America. All such suits were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation and were assigned to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York and Judge Keenan was the Presiding Judge throughout. Later, the legal battle shifted to Indian Courts, as it could not proceed in the U.S. Courts, on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Meanwhile, the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act, 1985 was passed by the Government of India with a view to secure that the claims arising out of or connected with the Bhopal gas leak disaster were dealt with speedily, effectively and equitably.

Union of India filed a suit for damages in the District Court of Bhopal on 5.9.86. However, there were negotiations for a settlement; but ultimately the settlement talks had failed.

On 17.12.1987, the District Judge ordered interim relief of Rs.350 crores. On appeal, the High Court, on 4.4.88 modified the order of the District Judge and ordered an interim relief of Rs.250 crores.

Aggrieved, the UCC as also the Union of India filed petitions for special leave before this Court. Leave was granted. By its orders dated 14.2.89 and 15.2.89, this Court, on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties, directed UCC to pay a sum of 470 million U.S. Dollars to the Union of India in full settlement of all claims, rights and liabilities related to and arising out of the Bhopal gas disaster.

The said orders were passed keeping in view the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of claims) Act, 1985.

The present Writ Petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the said Act inter alia on the grounds that the Act is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Con- stitution; that the Act is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice mainly on the ground that Union of India, being a joint tort-feasor, in that it has permitted establishment of such factories without necessary safeguards, has no locusstandi to compromise on behalf of the victims; that the victims and their legal heirs were not given the opportunity of being heard, before the Act was passed; that in the guise of giving aid, the State could not destroy the rights inherent in its citizens; nor could it demand the citizens to surrender their rights to the State; that vesting of C the rights in Central Government was bad and unreasonable because there was conflict of interest between the Central Government and the victims, since the Central Government owned 22% share in UCIL, and that would make the Central Government a Judge in its own cause.