Bhopal
A Chronology

2-3/12/1984
On the night of 2/3 December 1984, the inhabitants of the city of Bhopal became victims of the world's worst industrial disaster. Forty tonnes of methyl iscocyanate (MIC - a highly volatile toxic chemical) stored at the pesticide plant - owned by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), USA - was contaminated with water and other impurities. The plant, which had installed inadequate and underdesigned safety systems, was incapable of totally containing the exothermic reaction set off by the contamination. As a result, a mixture of deadly gases escaped from the factory killing several thousands of people and inflicting grievous injuries on at least 500,000 others. (The official death toll has risen to over 10,000 as of October 1995).

3/12/1984
First Information Report (FIR) on the disaster filed at Hanumangunj police station, Bhopal.

1/12/1987
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) files charge sheet against Warren Anderson, chairman of UCC, and eleven other accused including UCC (USA), Union Carbide (Eastern) Hong Kong, and UCIL.

6/7/1988
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bhopal, issues letter rogotory to the U.S. Administration seeking permission for the CBI to inspect the safety systems installed at the MIC unit of UCC's premier pesticide plant in the town called Institute in the State of West Virginia, USA.

9/2/1989
CJM, Bhopal, issues non-bailable warrant of arrest against Warren Anderson, accused No.1, for repeatedly ignoring summons.

14/2/1989
The U.S. Administration grants permission to the CBI to inspect the safety systems of UCC's pesticide plant at Institute, West Virginia, USA, for purposes of comparison of the safety standards with that of the safety systems installed at the Bhopal plant.

14-15/2/1989
While the matter relating to payment of interim compensation was being heard before the Supreme Court of India, UCC and the Government of India (GOI) reached a settlement. The settlement stipulated inter alia that UCC would pay 470 million US dollars as compensation and the GOI would withdraw the criminal cases instituted against the accused in the Bhopal gas leak disaster case.

Feb./Mar.'89
Public protest against the unjust settlement followed by filing of a number of review and writ petitions against the settlement in the Supreme Court by the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangatan (BGPMUS), the Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangarsh Sahayog Samiti (BGPSSS) and other concerned groups.

3/10/1991
Supreme Court of India revoked criminal immunity granted to UCC and all other accused in the Bhopal gas leak disaster case in response to review and writ petitions filed by BGPMUS, BGPSSS and others. To meet the medical needs of the gas victims, the Court further ordered the Government of India to construct a 500-bed hospital. The construction cost of the hospital and its running cost for eight years (which was estimated to be around Rs.50 crores at that time) was to be borne by UCC and UCIL.

11/11/1991
Criminal cases against all the accused revived in the CJM's Court at Bhopal.
7/12/1991
Proclamation issued by CJM, Bhopal ordering Warren Anderson - accused No.1, UCC (USA) - accused No.10, and UCE (Hong Kong) - accused No.11, to present themselves before the CJM on 1/2/92.

1/1/1992
Proclamation for Anderson's appearance published in the Washington Post.

1/2/1992
The CJM declares Anderson, UCC (USA) and Union Carbide Eastern (Hong Kong) as absconders for non appearance in the criminal case. The CJM also declares that if the accused do not appear in Court on 27/3/92 their properties are liable to be attached.

21/2/1992
Proclamation of CJM published in the Washington Post declaring UCC (USA) an absconder and ordering UCC to present itself before the CJM on 27/3/1992.

26/2/1992
The above proclamation was also published in The Times of India.

27/2/1992
Proclamation published in The Times of India declaring UCE (Hong Kong) as absconder and ordering it be present before the CJM on 27/3/11992.

20/3/1992
After being proclaimed offender, UCC(USA)sets up the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust in London (UK) with Ian Percival, as its sole trustee. UCC endows the entire shares of UCC in UCIL to the Trust. Apart from an initial grant of 1000 Pound Sterling for administrative expenses of the Trust, the only funds endowed to the Trust by UCC are the shares of UCC in UCIL.

27/3/1992
CJM, Bhopal issues non-bailable warrant of arrest against Warren Anderson and orders the Government of India to seek extradition of Anderson from the United States. Acceding to UCIL's request, theCJM postpones attachment of UCC's properties in India.

15/4/1992
UCC announces that it has endowed its entire shares in UCIL to the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust.

20/4/1992
Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangarsh Sahayog Samiti(BGPSSS), Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangatan (BGPMUS) and Bhopal Group for Information & Action (BGIA) appeal to members of the Indian Parliament to prevent transfer of UCC's shares in UCIL to the so- called Trust and to persuade the Government to get the properties of UCC in India attached forthwith.

23/4/1992
CBI files application before CJM, Bhopal for attachment of shares and properties of UCC in India.

29/4/1992
BGPSSS, BGIA, and BGPMUS also file application before the CJM, Bhopal for attachment of shares and properties of UCC in India.

30/4/1992
In pursuance of the above applications, the CJM, Bhopal refuses to recognize the claim of the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust and attaches the shares and properties of UCC in India.

22/5/1992
Following the direction of the CJM, Bhopal on 27/3/1992, the proclamation declaring UCE (Hong Kong) an absconder was published in the South China Morning Post.

---The criminal case (R.T. No.2792/87) was committed to trial by the CJM, Bhopal, after separating 3 of the 12 accused - namely, accused Nos.1, 10 and 11 - who had been proclaimed as absconders on 1/2/1992. Date of committal was fixed for 22/6/92. The cases against the absconding accused were to proceed before the CJM, Bhopal, as Miscellaneous Judicial Case (MJC) No. 91 of 1992.

22/6/1992
The criminal case (R.T.No.2792/87) was committed to the Session Court for trial. The CJM, Bhopal, ordered all those accused, who were appearing before it - namely, accused Nos. 2 to 9 and 12 - to appear before the Session Court on 17/7/92 to face trial.

17/7/1992
The trial (Session Trial No.257/1992) against accused Nos.2 to 9 & 12 began before the Court of the IXthAdditional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. --- CBI filed an application before the CJM, Bhopal, for the appointment of a receiver for the attached properties of UCC in India.

11/8/1992
The M.P. High Court stayed the appointment of a receiver for the attached properties of UCC in India in response to the revision petition (Cr.R. No.362/92) filed by UCIL against the order of the CJM, Bhopal, dated 30/4/1992 in R.T. No.2792/87. The High Court also ordered the CBI to file a reply.

19/11/1992
Scheduled date for the final hearing on the application filed by the CBI before the High Court for vacating the stay on the appointment of a receiver for the attached properties of UCC. But the hearing was postponed.

5/4/1993
BGPSSS, BGPMUS and BGIA submitted a petition to Shri Narasimha Rao, Prime Minister, GOI, highlighting five issues of utmost importance which were causing grave concern to the victims of the Bhopal gas leak disaster. The issues related to payment of interim relief, economic rehabilitation, payment of final compensation, Medical relief and research, and prosecution of the guilty. The petitioners also urged the Prime Minister to ensure that the government interacted with all the concerned parties to tackle the problem in right earnest and in the best interests of the victims.

8/4/93
The Sessions Court, Bhopal, framed charges against accused Nos. 2 to 9 & 12 (eight officials of UCIL and the company UCIL) for punishable offenses under sections 304 (2), 326, 324 and 429 of IPC read with section 35 of IPC.

27/4/93
Accused Nos.2 and 3 filed revision petitions Nos.237/93 and 238/93 in the High Court against the order of the Session Court, Bhopal, dated 8/4/1993 in Session Trial No.257/92. (Subsequently two more revision petitions - Nos. 311/93 and 312/93 - were filed by accused Nos.4 to 9 in the same case.)

10/12/1993
In applications (I.A. Nos.24 & 25 in C.A. No.3187-88 of 1988) filed by the UOI, the Apex Court recorded the proposal of Ian Percival, sole Trustee - Bhopal Hospital Trust, to raise funds for the Hospital by sale of the attached shares of UCC in UCIL. The case is adjourned for UOI to consider the proposal.

[As the record of proceedings dated 10/12/1993 show, UCC participated in these proceedings and was also heard through counsel. UCC, which is absconding from the proceedings in the criminal case (R.T. No.2792 of 1987/MJC No.91 of 1992) before the CJM, Bhopal, appeared in the Apex Court in a civil suit along with the UOI! Also, the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust was an entity set up by a proclaimed offender, namely,UCC. The CJM, Bhopal, had refused to accord legitimacy to the attempt made by the proclaimed offender, UCC, to transfer its shares in UCIL to the so-called Trust.

The questions that arise from the above developments are: (1) Can a Trust which was set up abroad by a proclaimed offender - an accused in a criminal case and absconding from a court in India - be accorded recognition by any judicial, governmental or non-governmental body in India? (2) Does the established laws in any country allow a proclaimed offender in a criminal case to freely participate in the proceedings in a civil case? Any way BGPSSS and BGIA were neither served notice nor heard on the matter. In fact, they were kept totally in the dark about the entire proposal!]

27/12/1993
BGPSSS, BGPMUS, BGIA and Medico Friends Circle (MFC) submitted a petition to Shri Digvijay Singh, the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, urging him to initiate action on the issues which were already brought to the notice of the Prime Minister on 5/4/1993. Representatives of BGPSSS, BGPMUS, BGIA and MFC also met the Chief Minister along with three Members of Parliament - Shri Suresh Pachouri, Dr.Malini Bhattacharya and Shri Hannan Mollah - to discuss the issues raised in the petition.

7-25/1/1994
The Permanent Peoples Tribunal [PPT] on Industrial Hazards and Human Rights, which held its session in Bhopal in October 1992, had recommended the setting up of an International Medical Commission on Bhopal (IMCB). (PPT was founded in 1979 as the successor to the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Crimes Against Humanity and is now based in Rome.) IMCB finally materialised when at the request of victim-groups, fourteen medical specialists from eleven countries - Belarus, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, UK and USA - came together to deliberate on the long term medical care of the Bhopal gas victims. The doctors came out of compassion and at considerable personal cost and none of them were paid for their services.

The IMCB held its sessions in Delhi and Bhopal. The team spent twelve days in Bhopal interacting with gas victims, medical doctors, government officials, and studying available medical reports. The team also met the Chief Minister of the state. During their stay in Delhi, the IMCB team met the Minister for Chemical & Fertilizers and members of the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR).

On 23/1/1994, the IMCB issued a statement which, among other things, stated the following:

I. "The IMCB publicly and clearly condemns Union Carbide and reiterates its full responsibility not only for the responsibility of the deadly gas leak but also for the confounding role of its behavior with respect to the timely and effective application of the appropriate medical measure since the time of the accident. We underline specifically: 1. The lack of transparency about qualitative and quantitative composition of the leaking gases. This contributes substantially to the absence of a rational strategy of care in the acute phase and to the perpetuation of conflicts and suspicions among the professionals and the population...."
II. "We recommend that on the basis of the evidence collected during our activity in Bhopal:

1.A substantial re-organisation of the health care system take place, to recognize that the current needs of the affected population are different from those in the earlier phase of the tragedy: a) priority should be given to the implementation of a network of community based clinics which would more equitably and efficiently provide routine care for the population while avoiding unnecessary pressure on the hospital level. This should favour a policy of information and health education; b) hospital based resources should be reoriented, mainly on an outpatient basis, to monitor those affected persons with chronic conditions.

2.The disease categories recognised as related to the Carbide Gas release be broadened to include specifically neurotoxic injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. Alterations in the immune system should be formally considered in selected group of patients. Because of the possibly elusive characteristics of these clinical conditions (which impose however a heavy burden of suffering and impairment), a decisive effort should be made to clearly identify and characterize those who are affected in order to assure them appropriate follow-up care and adequate compensation.

3.Urgent priority be given to a critical review and full utilization of the data which have been collected in the many studies of the ICMR. Existing information should be communicated to the population and submitted for publication by the international scientific community. The IMCB is specifically worried by the absence of of long term outcome studies on the pediatric and women's populations who were so severely affected by the Carbide Gas release.

4.That the gas victims have the right to timely access to their medical records. Further, the often repeated commitment to a "health book" given to each individual should be implemented. This would facilitate the recording of medical histories and continuity care for those with chronic conditions.
The Commissioners of the IMCB also committed themselves to stand ready "to assist the Government and our medical colleagues to implement the recommendations of the Commission."

14/2/1994
Supreme Court of India modifies the order of the CJM, Bhopal dated 30/4/1992 and allows UCC to sell off its shares in UCIL. However, BGPSSS and BGIA, at whose instance the properties of UCC were attached, were not served notice when the matter was brought before the Supreme Court. They were, thereby, denied an opportunity to present their views before the Supreme Court.

4/4/1994
BGPSSS and BGIA complain to the CJM, Bhopal about the injustice. The CJM directs BGPSSS and BGIA to file petition before the Supreme Court of India. 13/4/1994 BGPSSS and BGIA file petition before the Supreme Court for review of the order dated 14/2/1994 in I.A. Nos. 24 & 25 in C.A. Nos. 3187-88 of 1988.

18/4/1994
BGPSSS handed over to Shri R.M.Singh, DIG ACU-1, CBI (the chief officer in-charge of the Bhopal gas leak disaster case from the CBI), a copy of the video cassette (which is currently in the possession of the Delhi Science Forum) of the documentary titled "The Betrayal of Bhopal" produced by World-In-Action Programme, Granada Television, United Kingdoms in June 1985 along with a copy of the transcript.

In the covering note, BGPSSS had stated that "this documentary provides prima facie evidence that UCC, while installing safety systems, had adopted double standard....However, these charges against UCC have to be verified by carrying out a comparative study of the safety systems of the Bhopal and Institute plants. We, hereby, request the CBI, which has not yet inspected the safety systems at the Institute plant in West Virginia, USA, to conduct the necessary inspection without further delay." (The note was also sent by registered post on 22/4/1994.)

22/4/1994
BGPSSS also addressed letters to Shri Eduardo Faleiro, Minister for Chemicals & Fertilizers, Shri Dinesh Singh, Minister for External Affairs, and Shri S.B.Chavan, Minister for Home Affairs, regarding the inordinate delay in seeking the extradition of Warren Anderson, accused No.1 in the Bhopal gas leak disaster criminal case. It was pointed out that a non-bailable warrant of arrest issued by the CJM, Bhopal, had been pending against the accused since 27/3/1992. BGPSSS, therefore, requested the ministers to "expedite the process of extradition so that the accused can be brought to trial without further delay." The ministers were also requested to "facilitate the visit if the CBI team to the United States so that the CBI could carry out the comparative study of the safety systems installed at the Bhopal and Institute plants at the earliest."

(While the letter addressed to Shri Eduardo Faleiro was handed over to his office, the other two letters were sent by registered post. Regrettably, neither has any action been initiated on the matter till date nor has BGPSSS received any reply so far.)

16/5/1994
The Supreme Court rejected applications (I.A. Nos. 26 & 27 in C.A. Nos.3187-88/88) filed by the Trustee of the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust which implicitly sought withdrawal of criminal cases instituted against UCC and UCIL.

4/7/1994
BGPSSS and BGIA filed three petitions (I.A. Nos.1, 2 and 3 in R.T. No.2792/87 - MJC No.91/92) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal. They are as follows: (1) for issuance of directions to the CBI to inspect UCC's plant at Institute in West Virginia, USA, for purposes of comparison of the safety standards with those of the safety systems installed at UCC's Bhopal plant; (2) for issuance of contempt of court notice to the GOI for not carrying out the order of the CJM, Bhopal, dated 27/3/1992 in R.T. No.2792/87. (On 27/3/1992, the Court had directed the UOI to seek extradition from the United States of accused No.1, Warren Anderson, against whom a non-bailable warrant of arrest had been issued by the Court); and (3) for issuance of notice to UCIL under section 201 and 202 IPC for tampering with vital evidence relating to the case.

14/7/1994
BGPSSS and BGIA filed amended review petitions(I.A. Nos.30 & 31 in C.A. Nos.3187-88/88) before the Apex Court against the order of the Court dated 14/2/1994 in I.A. Nos.24 & 25 in C.A. Nos.3187-88/88.

18/7/1994
Review petition filed by BGPSSS and BGIA not listed for hearing as scheduled.

10/9/1994
Announcement about signing the sales deal for the attached shares of UCC in UCIL appear in newspapers.

15/9/1994
Chief Justice of India orders listing of the review petition filed by BGPSSS and BGIA for hearing on 26/9/1994 after the matter was mentioned before his bench.

26/9/1994
Listing of review petition of BGPSSS and BGIA rescheduled and postponed to 7/10/1994.

7/10/1994
In response to the petitions filed by BGPSSS and BGIA (I.A. Nos.1, 2 and 3 in MJC 91/92) the CJM, Bhopal, issued an order recognising the locus standi of the intervener-petitioners and granted permission to them to intervene in the case. The CJM, however, rejected the application (I.A. No.1) seeking issuance of directions to the CBI to inspect the MIC unit of UCC's plant at Institute in West Virginia, USA, on the ground that the case against UCC was not before the Court of the CJM but was pending before the Bhopal Sessions Court. [The fact of the matter is that the Court was misled by the CBI on this issue and the relevant files were not before the Court at that time. The CJM had issued the order without the CBI ever filing written replies to the applications filed by BGPSSS and BGIA. The CBI had only made oral submissions before the Court during the hearing on the application.]

The application (I.A. No.2) on issuance of contempt of court notice to the GOI for failing to execute the order of the CJM dated 27/3/1992 was also rejected on the ground that the CBI had given an undertaking to the Court on 20/9/1994 that the facts relating to the extradition proceedings undertaken by the GOI would be placed before the Court within a month. [The relevant facts of the case have not been placed before the CJM to this day.]

Regarding the application (I.A. No.3) against UCIL, the CJM pointed out that the case had already been committed for trial and was pending before the Sessions Court.

7/10/1994
Listing of review petition of BGPSSS and BGIA rescheduled yet again and postponed to 10/11/1994. The Trustee of the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust appears before the Chief Justice of India and prays for a hearing in the same matter. The Trustee's prayer listed for hearing on 20/10/1994.

20/10/1994
Before hearing the petition of the so-called Trustee, the Supreme Court heard the review petitions of BGPSSS and BGIA (I.A. Nos. 30 & 31 in C.A. Nos. 3187-88 of 1988) which were pending before the Court since 13/4/1994. After hearing the matter which had been adjourned five times, the Hon'ble Court gave the following ruling: (1) that the Supreme Court had not pronounced on the legality of the Bhopal Hospital Trust and that the matter of legality of the Trust should be decided by the Jabalpur High Court where a case pertaining to the appointment of a receiver for the attached shares of UCC in UCIL was pending; (2) that, while Rs.60 crores from the sale of the attached shares would go towards construction of a hospital for the Bhopal gas victims, the rest of the amount from the sales proceedings - amounting to Rs.230 crores (minus taxes and other expenses) - would remain attached in the name of UCC and the Trust, with the CJM, Bhopal retaining jurisdiction over the attached funds; (3) that no funds from the sales proceeds would go towards any administrative expenses of the Trust and that all administrative expenses for the Trust should be borne by UCC from other sources.

(Thus, BGPSSS and BGIA not only thwarted the attempt of UCC to wriggle out of the jurisdiction of the Indian courts, but also successfully prevented Ian Percival, the sole trustee of the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust, from appropriating Rs.5 crores in foreign exchange [equivalent to about one million Pound Sterling] from the sales proceeds to meet administrative expenses of his office in London. His attempt to do so clearly demonstrated the fact that the so-called Trust never bothered to mobilize any funds for its own administrative expenses, let alone any funds for the benefit of the gas victims. The Trust has not raised even a penny for the victims. There is, therefore, little doubt that the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust was merely a front created by UCC to stave off attachment of UCC's properties.)

14/12/1994
IMCB's Interim Report was released in Bhopal.

14/2/1995
Rescheduled date for the final hearing in the M.P.High Court (Jabalpur) of Cr.R. No.362/92 against the order of the CJM, Bhopal, dated 30/4/1992 in R.T. No.2792/87. Final hearing in Cr.R. Nos. 237/93, 238/92, 311/93 and 312/93 against the order of the Sessions Court dated 8/4/1993 in S.T. No.257/92 were also scheduled to take place on the same day. However, both CBI and UCIL sought postponement of hearing to 23/3/1995. BGPSSS, BGIA and BGPMUS filed applications before the High Court seeking permission to intervene in the case.

20/2/1995
An application (I.A. No.4 in MJC 91/92) was filed by the intervener-petitioners, BGPSSS and BGIA, before the CJM, Bhopal, in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 7/10/1994. The intervener-petitioners brought to the notice of the Court the following:

(1) that as per the order of the CJM dated 22/5/1992, the criminal case arising out of the Bhopal gas leak disaster against the 12 accused had been bifurcated due to continued absence of accused Nos.1, 10 and 11. Subsequently, the cases against the rest of the 9 accused were committed to the Sessions Court where proceeding against them were initiated on 17/7/1992. The cases against accused Nos.1, 10 and 11 were to be pursued before the CJM as MJC 91/92. It followed from the above that that the specific matter with regard to inspection of the MIC unit at UCC's plant in Institute, West Virginia, USA, was entirely within the jurisdiction of the CJM, Bhopal;

(2) that as of 20/2/1995, the CBI had not placed the status report on the extradition procedures initiated by the GOI against Accused No.1, Warren Anderson. This was in clear violation of the undertaking given by the CBI to the Court on 20/9/1994.

(3) that while the cases against all three absconding accused (Nos.1, 10 and 11) were before the Court, there was no mention of accused Nos.10 and 11 in the proceedings before the Court since it was last mentioned in the order sheet on 29/9/1992.

(4) that contrary to the information submitted to the Court by the CBI on 27/3/1992, UCC continued to have holdings in Hong Kong. BGPSSS and BGIA undertook to submit to the CBI and to the Court specific information on UCC's Hong Kong based companies within fifteen days.

7/3/1995
In fulfillment of the undertaking given to the CJM, Bhopal, on 20/2/1995, BGPSSS and BGIA handed over to the CBI the addresses, telephone & fax numbers, and the names of the authorised representatives of UCC's Hong Kong based companies. The information was received from Hong Kong based groups supporting the struggle of the Bhopal gas victims. One of the names placed before the CBI was that of the Vice-President of UCC and Director of the Agricultural Products Division of Union Carbide Eastern (Hong Kong) at the time of the disaster - Ramaswami Natarajan, an Indian passport holder. Ramaswami Natarajan's links with the Bhopal UCIL plant was well documented. Therefore, it was hoped that the CBI would, without further delay, seek the presence of Ramaswami Natarajan before the CJM, Bhopal, to shed more light on the role of UCE (Hong Kong) in the disaster. 8/3/1995BGPSSS and BGIA filed an application (I.A. No.4 in S.T. No.257/92) before the Court of the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, seeking clarification as to whether the cases against accused Nos.11 and 12 were before the Court as stated in the CJM's order dated 7/10/1994 in I.A. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in MJC 91/92.

10/3/1995
Information on accused No.11, UCE (Hong Kong), which was received from the Hong Kong based groups supporting the cause of the Bhopal gas victims and which was handed over to the CBI on

7/3/1995, was also placed before the CJM, Bhopal.

23/3/1995
Final hearing of Cr.R.362/92 and other cases in the High Court at Jabalpur postponed to 26/4/1995.

31/3/1995
BGPSSS and BGIA filed an application (I.A. No.5 in MJC 91/92) before the CJM, Bhopal, seeking issuance of summons to Ramaswami Natarajan, a key official of UCE (Hong Kong). UCE is accused No.11 and a proclaimed offender in the Bhopal disaster case.

11/4/1995
Led by BGPMUS, a mass delegation of Bhopal gas victims came to Delhi to submit a memorandum to the Prime Minister, Shri Narasimha Rao. Before listing out the demands pertaining to medical, economic and social rehabilitation, on the one hand, and the criminal case against Union Carbide, on the other, the memorandum stated the following: "This is the fifth memorandum to you submitted by the gas affected people in your office. Prior to this, thousands of suffering and helpless gas affected people traveled to Delhi, on dates such as 31.7.1991, 17.11.1991, 24.4.1992, 28.7.1993, etc., to present their memorandum in the hope that necessary and concrete action would be initiated to meliorate their suffering. We deeply regret the fact that not only have you disregarded initiating any action, even a formal acknowledgment of the memorandum was never sent to us. Still, we once again travel to Delhi with a lingering hope that even after a delay of one full decade, meaningful action would be initiated to redress the grievances of lakhs of victims, ending a long phase of injustice." (This memorandum also did not evoke any response from the Prime Minister.)

21/4/1995
The CBI filed a petition seeking dismissal of I.A. nos.4 and 5 in MJC 91/92 filed by BGPSSS and BGIA on 22/2/1995 and 31/3/1995 before the CJM, Bhopal.

26/4/1995
Final hearing of Cr.R.362/92 and other cases in the High Court postponed to 18/7/1995

5/5/1995
The CJM, Bhopal, dismissed the applications (I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 in MJC 91/92) filed by BGPSSS and BGIA on 20/2/1995 and 31/3/1995 on the basis of the objections raised by the CBI.

9/6/1995
The IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, disposed of I.A. No.4 in S.T. No.257/92 filed by BGPSSS and BGIA on 8/3/1995. The Court did not grant locus standi in the trial to the applicants, because they had not sought permission under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, the Court clarified that the committal order of the CJM, Bhopal, dated 22/6/1992 only related to accused Nos.2 to 9 and 12 and that the trial against accused Nos.10 and 11 had not been committed before the Court so far.

18-21/7/1995
After several adjournments, final hearing in the revision petitions filed by accused Nos.2 to 9 (Cr.R. Nos.237/93, 238/93, 311/93 and 312/93) against the order of the Bhopal Sessions Court dated 8/4/1992 in S.T. No.257/92 finally took place in the High Court (Jabalpur). Despite protests by BGPSSS, BGIA and BGPMUS, hearing of Cr.R. No.362/92 filed by UCIL on 11/8/1992 was arbitrarily postponed to 5/10/1995. [Curiously enough, UCIL never wanted its own petition (Cr.R. No.362/92) to be heard by the High Court. Nor did the CBI ever make any attempt during the past three years to get the stay on the appointment of a receiver (for the attached properties of UCC in R.T. No.2792/87) vacated. This is despite the fact that the scheduled date for the final hearing on the matter before the High Court was 19/11/1992.]

1/8/1995
The Jabalpur High Court dismissed the revision petitions (Cr.R. Nos. 237/93, 238/93, 311/93 and 312/93) filed by accused Nos.2 to 9 on 27/4/1993 against the order of the Sessions Court, Bhopal, dated 8/4/1993 in S.T. No.257/92. 20/9/1995 The sole Trustee of the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust filed an application (I.A. Nos.34 & 35 in C.A. No.3187-88/88) before the Supreme Court seeking an additional sum of Rs. 183 crores from the attached funds of UCC lying in the custody of the CJM, Bhopal. The amount was supposedly required for expanding the proposed 260 bedded hospital into a 500 bedded one.

22/9/1995
BGPSSS and BGIA filed an application under section 301 (2) Cr.P.C before the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, for permission to appear on the side of and assist the prosecution in Sessions Trial 257/92 (trial against accused Nos.2 to 9 and 12 in the Bhopal gas leak disaster criminal case).

5/10/1995
UCIL withdraws its petition (Cr.R.362/92). [After several inexplicable adjournments, the case was finally abandoned. Thus, the order of the CJM, Bhopal, dated 30/4/1992 in R.T.No.2792/92, attained finality after UCIL withdrew its revision petition (Cr.R. No.362/92 dated 11/8/1992) from the High Court on or about 5.10.1995.]

16/10/1995
Accused Nos.2 and 3 filed SLPs (Cr.) Nos.3900 and 3901 before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court dated 1/8/1995 in Cr.R. Nos.237/93 and 238/93. [Subsequently two more SLPs (Nos.3932 and 3953) were filed before the Supreme Court by accused Nos.4 to 9 and 12 against the order of the High Court dated 1/8/1995 in Cr.R.Nos.311/93 and 312/93. All the SLPs were allowed and renumbered as Criminal Appeals Nos.1672-75 of 1996]

29/11/1995
BGPSSS and BGIA filed applications (I.A. Nos.36 & 37) in C.A. Nos.3187-88/88) before the Supreme Court in response to I.A. nos. 34 & 35 filed on 20/9/1995 by the sole Trustee, Ian Percival, of the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust. In their application, BGPSSS and BGIA prayed:
(1)that the name of Ian Percival, the sole Trustee, be deleted from the joint account holding of the accounts opened in the State Bank of India to be utilised for the proposed hospital as directed by the Supreme Court by orders dated 14/2/1994 and 20/10/1994;
(2)that Ian Percival should no longer allowed to be associated with the construction of the proposed hospital or permitted to handle any of the monies under attachment lying in the account held in the State Bank of India;
(3)that it will be the Union of India and the Union of India alone which will take all steps necessary to secure, utilise, and employ with the express prior approval of the Supreme Court, the monies lying in the accounts opened pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court dated 14/2/1994 and 20/10/1994 in connection with the construction of the proposed hospital at Bhopal.
(4)that no further applications should be entertained at the instance of the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust or its sole Trustee, Ian Percival, and the liberty given to them in the earlier orders of the Supreme Court should be withdrawn.
(5)that UCC should bear the entire expenses - both already incurred and those likely to be incurred - for providing complete medical care to the Bhopal gas victims and for their proper rehabilitation. Pending recovery of medical and rehabilitation expenses from UCC, the Government of India and the Government of Madhya Pradesh must raise adequate resources on its own to meet the requirements and not depend on the attached funds of UCC for the purpose.
(6)that UCC should furnish complete information regarding the toxic effects of MIC on human animal and plant life. (7) that, pursuant to the orders dated 20/10/1994 in I.A. Nos. 30 & 31 in C.A. Nos.3187-88/88, Ian Percival be directed to furnish full accounts of all monies he has so far spent from the money allotted to the Trust from the sales proceeds of the attached properties of UCC in UCIL.

6/2/1996
In a supplementary affidavit filed in I.A. nos. 34 & 35 in C.A. nos. 3187-88/88, Ian Percival modified his earlier proposal dated 20/9/1995 with the following additions:

* the establishment of a cardio-thoracic unit; * 10 primary/secondary centres with 20 in-patient beds each; and an * unspecified research and teaching unit.

27/2/1996
On behalf of BGPSSS and BGIA an affidavit was filed by the IMCB before the Supreme Court as a counter proposal to the supplementary affidavit filed on 6/2/1996 by Ian Percival, the sole Trustee of the so-called Bhopal Hospital Trust. In their affidavit, Dr.Marinus Verweij and Dr.Sushma Aquilla, who represented the IMCB, exposed the shortcomings in the plan put forward by Ian Percival and instead suggested a concrete alternate plan. The IMCB pointed out the following:

(1)that the plan put forward by Ian Percival was developed without inputs from medical professionals, particularly from those having experience in working with MIC-exposed patients and those with knowledge of comprehensive and primary care;
(2)that there was no need for further expansion of hospital beds; instead the focus should be on expansion of out-patient services such as development of community and primary health care systems;
(3)that while the most commonly reported ailments are respiratory disease, neurological disease, neuro-psychological disease, and eye disease, there was no evidence of cardiac disease amongst the gas affected victims of Bhopal;
(4)the IMCB model included the establishment of:

* 140 small community care centres;
* 16 new primary care centres without beds and refurbish 14 existing primary care centres;
* focus on research and clinical monitoring on long term effects of MIC exposure.

(5)that the IMCB proposed the setting up of a national medical commission on Bhopal to oversee the successful implementation of the proposed plan; 28/3/1996 Supplementary affidavit filed by IMCB.

2/4/1996
In a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of BGPSSS and BGIA, the IMCB again reiterated the following:


1.that the central and the local governments had primarily concentrated over the past years on increasing the hospital based services for gas victims. That there are at least 1690 beds available for the gas affected areas of Bhopal over and above the health facilities available for the general population of Bhopal.
2.that there was insufficient staff to run the new hospitals that have already been built at full capacity. The total number of beds (well over 2100 now) in Bhopal per capita, is nearly twice as high as recommended by the World Bank. Therefore further expansion of the number of beds either in hospital or in primary/secondary care units, as in the Bhopal Hospital Trust plans, is certainly not required.
3.that there are many complaints of overcrowding at the hospital PDs. Absence of community and primary care in any situation would cause great problem for adequate health care delivery. This results in doctors feeling overburdened and unable to satisfy patient demands.
4.that patients with common ailments should be seen at the community level and those needing more specialised care could then be treated at the less crowded hospitals.
5.that in research or literature the IMCB found no evidence of cardiac disease amongst the gas affected victims whatsoever, that calls for a cardio-surgical unit [at considerable expense] as proposed by the Bhopal Hospital Trust. However, if very specialised care is called for, it will be in the field of respiratory medicine, neurological and neuro-psychological medicine.

3/4/1996
On the recommendations of the Empowered Committee, the Supreme Court accepted Ian Percival's plan of providing additional hospital beds and a cardio-thoracic unit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in I.A. nos. 34 & 35 in C.A. nos.3187-88/88 directed that "out of the attached amount a sum of Rs.187 crores be released for the construction of the hospital, in favour of the Empowered Committee. The amount of Rs.187 crores together with interest accruing thereon upto the date of actual release and payment may be made available to the Empowered Committee to carry out the construction work." [At the meeting of the Empowered Committee which rejected the proposals put forward by the IMCB there was only one medical doctor present. And even that doctor had agreed that cardio-thoracic disease was not a disease induced by exposure to the toxic gases which escaped from the UCIL plant. Therefore, it is amply clear that the plans proposed by the Bhopal Hospital Trust have been developed without professional health planning expertise and without necessary details and practicalities required for successful implementation.]

10/7/1996
BGPSSS and BGIA file petition seeking issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against UCC (USA) and UCE (Hong Kong) as a consequence of their continued non-appearance before the CJM, Bhopal, so that extradition proceedings in regard to these accused can be initiated.

16/8/1996
A delegation of BGPSSS and BGPMUS, along with a representatives of central trade unions, women, students and youth organisations and others, met Shri I.K.Gujral, Union Minister for External Affairs, and submitted a petition urging the Central Government to execute the order of the CJM, Bhopal, dated 27/3/1992, which directed the Government of India to seek the extradition of Warren Anderson, former chairman of UCC and accused No.1 in the Bhopal gas leak disaster case, from the United States of America to India to stand trial. The Minister assured the delegation that his ministry would not remain a stumbling block and that he would do all he could to expedite the process.

13/9/1996
In Criminal Appeals Nos.1672-75 of 1996, filed before the Supreme Court by accused Nos.2 to 9 and 12 in the Bhopal gas leak disaster case, the Court came to the following conclusion: "Even assuming that it was a defective plant and it was dealing with a very toxic and hazardous substance like MIC, the mere act of storing such a material by the accused in that [tank] no. 610 could not prima facie suggest that the concerned accused, thereby, had the knowledge that they were likely to cause the death of human beings....Consequently in our view...it could not be said that the said material [which the prosecution relied upon before the Trial Court] even prima facie called for framing of a charge against the concerned accused under Section 304 Part II IPC on the spacious plea that the said act of the accused amounted to culpable homicide only because the operation of the plant on that night ultimately resulted in the death of a number of human beings and cattle." [para 20]

"....In our view, therefore, on the material pressed in service by the prosecution, for framing charges against the accused no charge could have been framed against the concerned accused either under Section 304 Part II or under Section 324, 326 or 429, IPC with or without the aid of Section 35, IPC. On these findings of ours the appeals will be required to be quashed." [para 21]

"....However, that does not mean that on the material as it stands on record the accused cannot even prima facie be alleged to have committed any criminal offense for which they can be called upon to face the trial and that they should get a clean chit and clean walk-over." [para 22]

"....Consequently, we find that on the material led by the prosecution against the accused at this stage, a prima facie case was made out by the prosecution for framing charges against accused nos.2, 3, 4 and 12 under Section 304-A read with Section 35 IPC while substantive charges under Section 304-A could be framed against accused nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9." [para 23]

[BGPSSS, BGIA and BGPMUS filed petitions before the Supreme Court to seek review of the judgement dated 13.9.1996. The petitions were summarily dismissed by the Court.] 8/10/1996In reply to the application filed by BGPSSS and BGIA on 10.7.1996, the CBI practically admitted that it was not pursuing charges against accused Nos. 10 and 11.

19/11/1996
CBI for the first time filed a statement before the CJM, Bhopal on the steps taken in the matter of extradition of Warren Anderson stating that the matter of extradition was being re-examined in the light of the Supreme Court judgement dated 13.9.1996.

10/11/1997
After nearly two years, the Supreme Court began hearing I.A. Nos.36 & 37 filed by BGPSSS and BGIA on 29.11.1995 which had challenged the bonafides of the Sole Trustee of the Bhopal Hospital Trust. In response to one of the prayers, the Supreme Court directed the Sole Trustee, Ian Percival - the former Solisitor General of England, to submit details of the the administrative expenses related to the construction of the hospital at Bhopal by 16th December, 1997. It was our contention that the Sole Trustee was siphoning off funds meant for the hospital in the guise of administrative expense.

28/11/1997
BGPSSS, BGIA and BGPMUS again pleded before the CJM, Bhopal to direct the CBI and the Government of India to seek extradition of Warren Anderson and authorised representatives of UCC (USA) and UCE (Hong Kong) to face criminal trial in India. Next hearing in the matter is scheduled for 19th December, 1997.

THE STRUGGLE OF THE BHOPAL GAS VICTIMS FOR JUSTICE CONTINUES!