1 / 5

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India The Bhopal Case

kolton
Download Presentation

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India The Bhopal Case

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (The Bhopal Case) Mindy Goeres CSA 6470

    2. Judicial Body and Facts Judicial Body: The Supreme Court of India   Facts: The plaintiffs are the alleged victims of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster, of 2 December 1984, who had cases brought before US and Indian courts.

    3. Facts Govt. of India passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act, to ensure it had standing, a locus standi, to sue Union Carbide in US Courts The Act subrogated the plaintiffs in the US and Indian Courts Plaintiffs contend the Act is unconstitutional based on violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, by creating special treatment for a group of citizens which may be to their disadvantage.

    4. Legal Issues Parens Patriae doctrine, originating in English law, creates both rights and responsibilities for the sovereign. Under parens patriae, the sovereign must look out for citizens who are non sui juris, i.e., disabled, insane, or incompetent.

    5. Decision Court found requirement to act according to the parens patriae doctrine in the preamble to the Constitution and the Directives Principles of State Policy. Court compared the relative position and resources of Union Carbide and the individual plaintiffs as well as the remoteness of the US courts and found the victims were relatively disabled in that sense of the relationship.

    6. Take –away’s: Don’t assume your subsidiary form of organization will protect the parent corporation. Don’t assume a host government can’t sue you in the US. Learn three latin legal phrases to show your doctoral intelligence!

More Related