Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case – Curative petitions filed by the Union of India seeking increase in the settlement amount – Held: Present petitions were filed by the Union of India 19 years post the settlement seeking to reopen the same – The very basis for the original settlement was the need to provide immediate succour to the victims through medical relief, rehabilitation measures etc. – Without a settlement, immediate funds would not have been available for the victims – Finality was reached at an early stage by way of the settlement – Endeavours to reopen the same proved unsuccessful – Now the curative petitions have been filed by the Union of India having not filed review petitions – Further, admittedly, the amount of settlement was found to be in surplus of the actual requirement – Thus, settlement amount was sufficient to compensate the claimants – Rs.50 crore remains with the Reserve Bank of India lying undisbursed – The exchange rate worked in the Union’s favour as the exchange rate of the Dollar rate escalated – Some interest on the settlement amount also came in – Furthermore, in the review judgment, in case of a shortage, the responsibility was placed on the Union of India to make good the deficiency and to take out the relevant insurance policies – However, no such insurance policy was taken out – The Union cannot be negligent on this aspect and then seek a prayer to fix such liability on UCC – Rs. 50 crore lying with the RBI to be utilised by the Union of India to satisfy pending claims, if any, in accordance with the 1985 Act and the Scheme framed thereunder – Union of India’s claim for ‘topping up’ the settlement amount has no foundations in any known legal principle – Curative petitions not entertained – Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985.

Curative petition – Held: A curative petition relates to a re-examination of a final judgment of Supreme Court that has already undergone such re-examination through the review jurisdiction – Court’s inherent power ought not to be exercised as a matter of course – Court should be circumspect in reconsidering an order that had become final on dismissal of the review petition – However, in the present case in view of the nature of the matter, the curative petitions were examined despite the preliminary objection on maintainability