Holding

The settlement and its adequacy cannot be re‑examined; all claims must be dealt with under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and its Scheme, and the interlocutory applications are dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard two interlocutory applications filed by Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti seeking a re‑examination of the 1989 settlement with Union Carbide, a five‑fold increase in the settlement fund, and directions for the Union of India to pay additional compensation in US dollars. The Union of India contended that all claims must be processed under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the Scheme framed thereunder, which had already been upheld as constitutional. The Court held that the adequacy of the settlement had been finally decided by a Constitution Bench and could not be reopened; any grievance must be pursued through the statutory Scheme, whose adjudication is quasi‑judicial and subject to appeal, revision and judicial review under Articles 226, 227 and 136. Consequently, the applications were dismissed, and the Court reiterated that compensation must be paid in Indian rupees as per the Scheme.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the 1989 Union Carbide settlement can be re‑examined by the Court.
Whether the applicants may seek additional compensation outside the statutory Scheme.
Whether claims must be processed exclusively under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and its Scheme.
Whether compensation can be paid in US dollars instead of Indian rupees.

Legislation cited

Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985s. 9

Subjects

Bhopal gas tragedysettlement adequacycompensationBhopal Gas Leak Disaster Actclaim processing schemeinterlocutory applicationjudicial reviewquasi‑judicialcompensation in rupeesre‑examination of settlement

Judgment

A BHOPAL GAS PEEDITH MAHILA UDYOG SANGATHAN AND ANR.
V.
--
UNION OF INDIA

MAY 4, 2007

B [C.K. THAKKER AND H.S. BED!, JJ.]

Constitution of India-Articles 136, 226 & 227-Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985-Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster
C (Registration and Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985-Voluntary
Organisations filing interlocutory applications before this Court contending
that compensation amount has not been paid by Union of India to a number
of eligible victims of gas disaster for death and serious injury-Union of
India contending that such victims can invoke the Scheme and get their
claims adjudicated-Admissibility of the applications-Held, this Court, in
D earlier decisions, has streamlined claims arising out of Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster-Consideration of claim and adjudication thereof require
determination of facts-Claim by eligible victims must be dealt with in
accordance with the Scheme under the Act.

A massive escape of lethal gas from a storage tank of a company resulted
E in large scale deaths, serious personal injuries, destruction of properties,
loss of livestock, etc. Several cases and claims for compensation and damages
were filed in different courts in India. The Union of India and the company
entered into a settlement under which the company agreed to pay a specified
sum in full settlement of all claims, rights and liabilities relating to the
F disaster. This Court, in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.,
1198913 sec 38, observed that there were about 3000 cases of death and
30,000 cases of personal injury and awarded appropriate compensation amount
from out of the settlement amount.

The applicants filed interlocutory applications before this Court
G contending that there were many more deaths under the head 'death' than
what was shown by the respondents and com[JCnsation had been paid; that all
eligible victims had not been identified and ascertained and adequate
compensation had not be paid to them; and that the nu.mber of cases in which
compensation had been awarded under the head 'injury' were very small. The
applicants prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent to
H 24
.,

... \ BHOPAL GAS PEEDITH MAH!LA UDYOG SANGA THAN v. U.O.l.

pay compensation to the gas victims under the heads 'death' and 'injury'.
25

A
The Union of India contended that it framed the Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster (Registration and Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985 under the
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims; Act, 1985 which provided
for processing of claims and in accordance with the procedure laid down
therein, claims had been adjudicated and payment of compensation had been B
made; and that the victims, who have not got the compensation amount, can
invoke the Scheme and get their claims adjudicated.

Dismissing the applications, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Re-examination of settlement or inadequacy of amount cannot c
be done as the said issue has already been decided by a Constitution Bench of
this Court in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. (1989] l
SCC 674. This Court has streamlined the claims arising out of Bhopal Gas
Tragedy Disaster. Precisely to deal with the cases of Bhopal Gas Tragedy that
an Act has been enacted, a Scheme has been framed under the Act and the
D
Procedure has been laid down. They have been held to be constitutional and
intra vires. Any person lodging a claim is required to make an application
and a duty is cast on the authority to take an appropriate decision on the basis
of the Scheme and Guidelines. Such adjudication has been held quasi-judicial
in nature subject to appeal, revision and judicial review before the High Court
under Articles 226 and 227 and even thereafter before this Court under Article E
136 of the Constitution of India. Since the consideration of claim and
adjudication thereof require determination of facts, the Court ruled that it
must be done in accordance with the Scheme. Guidelines and Procedure under
the Act and not in any other manner. So far as compensation is concerned,
this Court has held that it should be in Indian currency and even under the
Scheme, such amount is fixed in Indian Rupees. If any person claims that he/
F
she is adversely affected by Bhopal Gs Tragedy Disaster, he/she is at liberty
to take appropriate steps as suggested by this Court but not in any other
manner. [Paras 9, 19 and 20] [28-G; 34-E-G; 35-B]

Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] 1 SCC G
674 (CB); Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] 3
SCC 38; Charan Lal Sahu v. Union ofIndia, [1990] l SCC 613 (CB); Union
Carbide Corporation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1991] 4 SCC 584;
-.{ Krishna Mohan Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., [2000] 10 SCC 507; Krishna
Mohan Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., [2000] 2 SCC 690, referred to.
H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 48-49 in Civil Appeal
Nos. 3187-88of1988.

A. Saran, ASG., Indra Jaising and V.R Reddy, J.B. Dadachanji & Co.,
Anil Katiyar, P.S. Narasimha, Shomona Khanna, Anupam Lal Das, ARun K.
Sinha, Sunita Sharma, Sushma Suri, Prashant Bhushan, A. Mariarputham, K.J.
B John Indu Goswamy, Shomona Khan, Sudha Gupta, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,
B. Krishna Prasad, S. Wasim, A. Qadri, D.S. Mehra, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep
Parihar, Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat, C.D. Singh, Vibha Datta Makhija,
V.K. Verma, Harish Uppal, Madhu Sikri and S. Chandra Shekhar for the appearing
parties.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. The present two interlocutory applications are
filed by the applicants, (i) Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghathan
('BGPMUS' for short) and (ii) Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti
D ('BG PS SS' for short) inter a/ia praying to re-examine the inadequacy ofBhopal
Gas Settlement; to direct Union of India to compensate the Settlement Fund
five times the initial fund; to order the Reserve Bank of India to provide
detailed information on management and utilization of the Settlement Fund by
rendering faithful accounts relating to withdrawal of funds by Welfare
Commissioner; to command Welfare Commissioner, Bhopal to provide complete
E information regarding process of identification and categorization of gas
victims and the manner of disbursement of compensation to them; to rectify
the methodology in the process of identification and categorization of gas
victims and the manner of disbursement of compensation of amounts by
enhancing compensation appropriately.

F 2. The case relates to Bhopal Gas Tragedy. On December 2, 1984, there
was a massive escape of lethal gas from a storage tank at Bhopal plant of the
Union Carbide (India) Ltd. resulting in large scale of deaths, injuries to several
persons and destruction of properties, livestock, etc. Several suits were filed
for compensation and damages in different courts in India as also in the
G United States. Prosecution had also been launched. Ultimately, however, a
settlement had been arrived at between the Union of India and the Union
Carbide. The Union of India agreed to withdraw all cases and claims against
th~ Union Carbide and its officers. For the said purpose, Parliament also
enacted an Act known as the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of >--
Claims) Act, 1985 which empowered the Union of India to take over the
H conduct of all litigation in regard to claims arising out of gas disaster and to
- I
BHOPAL GAS PEEDITH MAHI LA UDYOG SANGA THAN v. U.O.l. [C.K. THAKKER. J.] 27

award compensation to the victims and affected persons.

3. According to the applicants, BGPMUS is an organization formed by
A

the Bhopal Gas Victims in 1986. Likewise, BGPSSS is an association constituted
in 1989 by a coalition of over 20 voluntary organizations of Scientists, Lawyers,
Teachers, Artists, Journalists, Workers, Women, Students, Youths etc. The
object of these two organizations is to support the struggle of the Bhopal Gas B
Victims for justice. Both the organizations have consistently championed the
cause of Bhopal Gas Victims by seeking medical/economic/social relief and
also payment of adequate compensation. It was stated in the applications that
several steps were taken by the organizations so as to provide Bhopal Gas
Victims and their families benefits to which they were entitled. Reference was
made to various orders passed by this Court from time to time and it was
c
stated that neither all eligible victims had been identified and ascertained nor
adequate compensation had been paid to them. It was also alleged that
though many persons lost their lives and several others injured, the number
of cases in which compensation had been awarded under the head 'death'
(category '04') were very small. Likewise, compensation awarded to persons D
who sustained 'injury' (category 'O I') were also showed to be less and several
_.... others had not been paid any amount whatsoever. It was asserted that the
magnitude of the disaster,in case of 'death' as also 'injury' was at least five
times larger than what was agsumed at the time settlement had been reached.
It was, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions be issued so that all
Bhopal Gas Victims may get compen~tion as gas victims/affected persons.
E

4. Notice was issued pursuant to which the respondents appeared.
Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the Union of India contesting the
applications. It was, inter alia, contended that the applications were based
on assumptions, surmises and conjectures and on misreading of judgments F
of this Court. According to the respondents, the applicants are trying to
reiterate and reopen the issue as to compensation which had been settled
with the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and the Union of India and this
Court had approved the said settlement. Even adequacy of amount of
compensation has been finally decided by this Court. The applications,
therefore, are liable to be dismissed. Further affidavits were also filed by the G
parties.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both the sides.
_J
\
6. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applications
deserve to be allowed on the ground that there were many more deaths under H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A category '04' than what was shown by the respondents and compensation
--
had been paid. In the same manner, injuries were sustained by several persons
than to whom compensation had been awarded under category '01'. For the
said purpose, attention of the Court was invited to the figures which had been
placed on record. Reference was also made to 2003 Annual Report published
B by the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (Relief and Rehabilitation) Department. Reliance
was placed on an order dated July 19, 2004 passed by a two Judge Bench of
this Court and an order dated August 23, 2006 passed in the present
applications. It was submitted that when authentic figures are available as to
'death' and 'injury' cases, appropriate directions may be issued to the Union
of India to pay compensation to gas victims under both the heads i.e. 'death'
C. (category '04') and 'injury' (category '01'). It was also submitted that such
payment must be made in US Dollars and not in Indian Rupees since the
settlement was with a Foreign Company and the amount had been paid in US
Dollars. Since the victims had not been paid their legal dues, the applicants
were constrained to approach this Court by filing the present applications.

D 7. The learned Additional Solicitor General, on the other hand, submitted
that from 1989 onwards, several orders had been passed by this Court from
time to time. A Scheme was framed in exercise of statutory power which
provided for processing of claims and in accordance with the procedure laid
down therein, claims had been adjudicated and payment of compensation had
E been made. It was also stated that even now, if the applicants feel that the
cases of'death' (category '04') or of'personal injury' (category '01') are more,
a remedy available to the victims is not to approach this Court by filing Writ
Petitions or Interlocutory Applications, but to invoke the Scheme and to get
the claims adjudicated. It was, therefore, submitted that the applications are
liable to be dismissed.
F
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the
present applications filed by the organizations are not well-founded and
cannot be allowed.

9. So far as re-examination of settlement or inadequacy of amount is
G concerned, in our opinion, it cannot be done as the said issue has already
been decided by this Court. In this connection, we may refer to a decision
of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Union Carbide Corporation v.
Union of India & Ors., [1989] I SCC 674. In that case, after 'careful
consideration' of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held the >-
case to be pre-eminently fit for an 'overall settlement' between the parties
H
BHOPAL GAS PEEDITH MAHILA UDYOG SANGA THAN v. U.0.1. [C.K: TllAKKER. J.] 29

covering all litigations, claims, rights and liabilities related to and arising out A
of the disaster. The Court, therefore, passed the following order observing
that it was just, equitable and reasonable. - ·'- -

The Court stated;

"We order: B
(I) The Union Carbide Corporation shall pay a sum of U.S. Dollars
470 millions (Four hundred and seventy Millions) to the Union
of India in full settlement of all claims, rights and liabilities related
to and arising out of the Bhopal Gas disaster.

(2) The aforesaid sum shall be paid by the Union Carbide Corporation C
to the Union Jf India on or before 31st March, 1989.

(3) To enable the effectuation of the settlement, all civil proceedings
related to and arising out of the Bhopal Gas disaster shall hereby
stand transferred to this Court and shall stand concluded in
terms of the settlement, and all criminal proceedings related to D
and arising out of the disaster shall stand quashed wherever
(
these may be pending".

10. Regarding 'death' (category '04') and 'personal injury' (category '01')
in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 38,
the san1e Bench observed that there were about 3,000 cases of 'death' and E
30,000 cases of 'personal injury'. In paragraphs 21 to 24, the Court stated:

"2 I. The figures adopted by the High Court in regard to the number
of fatal cases and cases of serious personal injuries do not appear to
have been disputed by anybody before the High Court. These data
and estimates of the High Court had a particular significance in the F
settlement. Then again, it was not disputed before us that the total
number of fatal cases was about 3000 and of grievous and serious
personal injuries, as verifiable from the records of the hospitals of
cases treated at Bhopal, was in the neighborhood of 30,000. ...It would
not be unreasonable to expect that persons suffering serious and G
substantially compensatable injuries would have gone to hospitals for
treatment. It would also appear that within about 8 months· of the
occurrence, a survey had been conducted for purposes of identification
of cases of death and grievous and serious injuries for purposes of
distribution of certain ex-gratia payments sanctioned by Government.
These figures were, it would appear, less than ten thousand. H
A
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.

22. In these circumstances, as a rough and ready estimate, this Court
took into consideration the prima facie findings of the High Court
r --
and estimated the number of fatal cases at 3000 where compensation
could range from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 3 lakhs. This would account for Rs.
70/-crores, nearly 3 times higher than what would, otherwise, be
awarded in comparable cases in motor vehicles accident claims.
B
23. Death has an inexorable finality about it. Human lives that have
been lost were precious and in that sense priceless and invaluable.
But the law can compensate the estate of a person whose life is lost
by the wrongful act of another only in the way the law is equipped
to compensate i.e. by monetary compensations calculated on certain
c well-recognized principles. "Loss to the estate" which is the entitlement
of the estate and the •loss of dependency' estimated on the basis of
capitalized present-value awardable to the heirs and dependants, are
the main components in the computation of compensation in fatal
accident actions. But, the High Court in estimating the value of
D compensation had adopted a higher basis.

24. So far as personal injury cases are concemP,d, about 30000 was
estimated as cases of permanent total or partial disability. Compensation
ranging from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/- per individual according as
the disability is total or partial and degrees of the latter was envisaged.
E This alone would account for Rs. 250/- crores. In another 20,000/-
cases of temporary total or partial disability compensation ranging
from Rs. I lakh down to Rs. 25000/- depending on the nature and
extent of the injuries and extent and degree of the temporary
incapacitation accounting for a further allocation of Rs. I 00/- crores
was envisaged. Again, there might be possibility of injuries of utmost
F severity in which case even Rs. 4 lakhs per individual might have to
be considered. Rs. 80 crores, additionally for about 2000 of such cases
were envisaged. A sum of Rs. 500 crores approximately was thought
of as allocable to the fatal cases and 42,000 cases of such serious
personal injuries leaving behind in their trail total or partial
G incapacitation either of permanent or temporary character".

11. The Court, however, was conscious of the ground reality and
proceeded to observe:

"29 .....These apportionments are merely broad considerations generally
guiding the idea of reasonableness of the overall basis of settlement.
H
BHOPAL GAS PEED ITH MAHILA UDYOG SAN GA THAN"· U.0.1. [CK. THAKKER, J.] J J

This exercise is not a pre-determination of the quantum of A
compensation amongst the claimants either individually or category-
wise. No individual claimant shall be entitled to claim a particular
quantum of compensation even if his case is found to fall within any
of the broad categories indicated above. The determination of the
actual quantum of compensation payable to the claimants has to be
done by the authorities under the Act, on the basis of the facts of B
each case and without reference to the hypothetical quantifications
made only for purposes of an overall view of the adequacy of the
1 amount.

30. These are the broad and general assumptions underlying the
concept of 'justness' of the determination of the quantum. If the total C
number of cases of death or of permanent, total or partial, disabilities
or of what may be called 'catastrophic' injuries is shown to be so large
that the basic assumptions underlying the settlement become wholly
unrelated to the realities, the element of justness' of the determination
and of the 'truth' of its factual foundation would seriously be impaired. D 1,
The 'justness' of the settlement is based on these assumptions of
truth. Indeed, there might be different opinions of the interpretation
of laws or on questions of policy or even on what may be considered
wise or unwise; but when one speaks of justice and truth, these words
mean the same thing to all men whose judgment is uncommitted".
E
12. It may also be appropriate to observe here that an Act had been
enacted by Parliament known as 'the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing
of Claims) Act, 1985' referred to above, validity of which had been upheld by
a Constitution Bench of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India,
[ 1990] I SCC 6 ·13. Section 9 of the Act empowered the Central Government F
to frame a Scheme for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act. In exercise
of the said power, the Central Government framed a Scheme known as the
'Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration and Processing of Claims) Scheme,
1985'. The Scheme is a 'complete Code' in itself. Para 3 of the Scheme enables

-
the authorities to register claims lodged before them. Whereas Para 4 (and 4A)
deals with manner of filing claims, Para 5 provides for categorization and G
registration of claims. Para 6 requires the Deputy Commissioner to take into
consideration matters for categorization of claims. Procedure has been laid
down in Para 8. Paras 9 and I 0 deal with Processing of Claims Account Fund
and Claims and Relief Fund respectively. Para 11 of the Scheme relates to
determination of quantum of compensation payable to claimants. Clause (5) H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A of Para 11 provides for appeal against an order passed by the Deputy I
Commissioner to the Additional Commissioner. Para 13 enumerates functions
of Commissioner and other officers appointed under the Act. It also confers
revisional jurisdiction on Additional Commissioner over an order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner.

B 13. In Union Carbide Corporation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
[ 1991] 4 SCC 584, this Court ensured that no victim of Bhopal Gas Tragedy
would be deprived of the benefit to which he/she is otherwise entitled. The
Court, accordingly, proclaimed;

"After a careful thought, it appears to us that while it may not be
....
-
c wise or proper to deprive the victims of the benefit of the settlement,
it is, however, necessary to ensure that in the perhaps unlikely-event
of the settlement-fund being found inadequate to meet the
compensation determined in respect of all the present claimants, those
persons who may have their claims determined after the fund is
D exhausted are not left to fend themselves. But, such a contingency
may not arise having regard to the size of the settlement-fund. If it
should arise, the reasonable way to protect the interests of the victims
is to hold that the Union of India, as a welfare State and in the
circumstances in which the settlement was made, should not be found
wanting in making good the deficiency, if any. We hold and declare
E accordingly".

(emphasis supplied)

14. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Government
of India issued guidelines by notification dated April 13, 1992 providing for
F compensation payable in cases of death, injury, loss of belongings, loss of
livestock etc. The relevant categories and the amount of compensation read
thus:
CAlEGORY RANGE/CEILING (Rs.)

-
Deaths 1-3 lakhs
G Permanent total or partial disability 50,000 to 2 lakhs
Injury of utmost severity Upto 4 lakhs
Claims for minor injuries Upto 20,000
Loss of belongings Upto 15,000
-'
H Loss of livestock Voto 10.000
BHOPAL GAS PEEDITH MAHI LA UDYOG SANGA THAN,.. U.0.1. [C.K. THAKKER, J.J 33
...
1 15. In Krishna Mohan Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., [2000] 10 SCC A
507, this Court held that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to put a
claim in a particular categorization is a quasi judicial decision and not an
administrative one. Such order is appealable as also revisable and even
thereafter it could be challenged by invoking the doctrine of judicial review.

16. Again, in Krishna Mohan Shukla v.Union of India, [2000] 2 SCC B
690, this Court considered the relevant paras of the Scheme and placement
of claims under different categories mentioned in Para 5 of the Scheme. It also
considered the grievances against placement of claims and remedy available
,<
to the aggrieved party in such cases. It observed that effective remedy is
available to the aggrieved party and such remedy is exhaustive. The Court
highlighted an important fact that a Welfare Commissioner was a sitting Judge
c
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and normally, therefore, the claimant
should have no cause of grievance after the decision by the Welfare
Commissioner. But even thereafter, a remedy under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution was available.
D
17. In para 8, the Court observed;

"8. As we see it, the limits within which compensation can be awarded
for claimants falling under different categories in Para 5, the Central
Government has specified the amounts under Para 11 (2). Specific
ailments are not mentioned therein. In practice, the Deputy Welfare E
Commissioner and the Additional Welfare Commissioner have to deal
with ailments and the question would arise as to under what category
of Para 5 of the Scheme would they fall and secondly as to what is
the specific amount which is payable to them within the scale. The
Committee of Deputy Commissioners appear to have formulated a
yardstick which would obviously avoid delay in the determination of F
the amount of compensation which is payable. In a modification
carried out on 6th December, 1997, it has been made clear, and in our
opinion rightly so, that the amount determined as compensation for
different types of ailments is not final. It will be subject to determination
afresh, if called in question, either in appeal or in revision before the G
Welfare Commissioner. We would at this stage like to emphasise that
we have seen orders passed by the Welfare Commissioner where he
has entertained revision petitions against the orders in appeal passed
~ by the Additional Commissioner. A Welfare Commissioner is a sitting
. ',.. Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and normally, therefore, the
H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A claimant should have no cause of grievance after the decision by the ,.. ' >
Welfare Commissioner. Even if thereafter there is some grievance, the
right of judicial review, inter alia, provided by Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution is always available. There can be little doubt that the
aggrieved persons are entitled to receive fair and just compensation
and/or damages due to them. There is now a system in place and any
B claims which are made have to be determined within this system.
There is first determination by the Deputy Welfare Commissioner
against which an appeal can be filed to the Additional Welfare
Commissioner and thereafter a revision to the Welfare Commissioner.
If evtn then there is a grievance of a claimant, proper remedy is to
C approach the High Court who would be in a position to deal with a
case more expeditiously and give relief to the individual claimant,
where it is called for, without undue expense, rather than approaching
this Court under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution".

18. In Para 11, this Court expressly stated that if any of the claimants
D had any grievance against an order passed by the Welfare Commissioner or
by the Tribunal, it was open to the claimant to seek judicial review but "first
it must be sought before the High Court rather than filing a writ petition under
Article 32 or a special leave petition under Article 136 directly in this Court".

19. From what we have stated hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that
E this Court has streamlined the claims arising out of Bhopal Gas Tragedy
Disaster. Precisely to deal with the cases of Bhopal Gas Tragedy that an Act
has been enacted, a Scheme has been framed under the Act and the Procedure
has been laid down. They have been held to be constitutional and intra vires.
Any person lodging a claim is required to make an application and a duty is
cast on the Authority to take an appropriate decision on the basis of the
F
Scheme and Guidelines. Such adjudication has been held quasi- judicial in
nature subject to appeal, revision and judicial review before the High Court
under Articles 226 & 227 and even thereafter before this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution. Since the consideration of claim and adjudication
thereof require determination of facts, the Court ruled that it must be done
G in accordance with the Scheme, Guidelines and Procedure under the Act and
not in any other manner. So far as compensation is concerned, this Court has
held that it should be in Indian currency and even under the Scheme such
amount is fixed in Indian Rupees. We, therefore, see no grievance now can
be made on that issue.
H
BHOPAL GAS PEED ITH MAHI LA UDYOG SANGA THAN v. U 0.1. [C.K. THAKKER, J JJS

20. The learned Additional Solicitor General stated that several false and A
vexatious claims under category '04' (death) and category '01' (injury) had
been lodged. It would not be appropriate for this Court to express any opinion
one way or the other, particularly in the light of the decisions of larger Bench
of this Court referred to hereinabove. If any person claims that he/she is
adversely affected by Bhopal Gas Tragedy Disaster, he/she is at liberty to
take appropriate steps as suggested by this Court in the above cases but not B
in any other manner.

21. For the foregoing reasons, in our considered opinion, no case has
. .1
been made out to issue any direction in the interlocutory applications. They
are not well founded and are ordered to be dismissed. In the facts and C
circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

B.S. Interlocutory Applications dismissed.

- ....