<p>The Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it is keen to pursue its curative petition filed in 2010 for “enhancement of compensation” to 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy victims, above the $470 million, already paid by Union Carbide.</p>.<p>Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted before a five-judge bench, presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, that it was a tragedy unfolding every day and the “victims can’t be abandoned”.</p>.<p>Appreciating the A-G’s “heartening” statement, advocate Karuna Nundy, representing the victims, contended that the victims have to be given an opportunity to give a representation before the court comes to a conclusion in the matter.</p>.<p>In his submission, Venkataramani said that even though there were numerous challenges in reopening the matter, “we cannot abandon the victims, because the tragedy is unfolding every day".</p>.<p>He said that the Union government wants to proceed and he has gone through considerable literature on the reopening of settlement.</p>.<p>The A-G said he will be able to place a note.</p>.<p>According to Nundy, there is the civil aspect first and then there is the criminal aspect, and the matter must be investigated.</p>.<p>However, the Union Carbide Corporation’s counsel questioned the locus standi of NGOs. The bench—also comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath, and J K Maheshwari—noted that a review was not filed; but a curative petition was filed after a gap of 19 years. The bench then asked the victims’ counsel, “in what capacity will you be heard?”</p>.<p>The bench, in its order, noted that the A-G has taken a stand before the court that the government would like to press its curative petition, and a number of NGOs would like to be impleaded, however, counsel for respondent has questioned the maintainability.</p>.<p>The bench said a compilation needs to be prepared by the AG and the company, and did not allow the counsel representing the victims to file any pleadings.</p>.<p>However, the bench clarified that it did not foreclose their rights to be heard by it. The court sought a joint compilation and fixed the matter for hearing after eight weeks.</p>.<p>In its curative plea filed in 2010, the Centre has contended that the compensation, determined in 1989, was arrived at on assumptions of truth unrelated to realities. The court had then issued notice to the Union Carbide Corporation, now a wholly owned subsidiary of American multinational corporation, Dow Chemical Company.</p>
<p>The Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it is keen to pursue its curative petition filed in 2010 for “enhancement of compensation” to 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy victims, above the $470 million, already paid by Union Carbide.</p>.<p>Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted before a five-judge bench, presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, that it was a tragedy unfolding every day and the “victims can’t be abandoned”.</p>.<p>Appreciating the A-G’s “heartening” statement, advocate Karuna Nundy, representing the victims, contended that the victims have to be given an opportunity to give a representation before the court comes to a conclusion in the matter.</p>.<p>In his submission, Venkataramani said that even though there were numerous challenges in reopening the matter, “we cannot abandon the victims, because the tragedy is unfolding every day".</p>.<p>He said that the Union government wants to proceed and he has gone through considerable literature on the reopening of settlement.</p>.<p>The A-G said he will be able to place a note.</p>.<p>According to Nundy, there is the civil aspect first and then there is the criminal aspect, and the matter must be investigated.</p>.<p>However, the Union Carbide Corporation’s counsel questioned the locus standi of NGOs. The bench—also comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath, and J K Maheshwari—noted that a review was not filed; but a curative petition was filed after a gap of 19 years. The bench then asked the victims’ counsel, “in what capacity will you be heard?”</p>.<p>The bench, in its order, noted that the A-G has taken a stand before the court that the government would like to press its curative petition, and a number of NGOs would like to be impleaded, however, counsel for respondent has questioned the maintainability.</p>.<p>The bench said a compilation needs to be prepared by the AG and the company, and did not allow the counsel representing the victims to file any pleadings.</p>.<p>However, the bench clarified that it did not foreclose their rights to be heard by it. The court sought a joint compilation and fixed the matter for hearing after eight weeks.</p>.<p>In its curative plea filed in 2010, the Centre has contended that the compensation, determined in 1989, was arrived at on assumptions of truth unrelated to realities. The court had then issued notice to the Union Carbide Corporation, now a wholly owned subsidiary of American multinational corporation, Dow Chemical Company.</p>
