Mr. Sharma became involved in the struggle of the Bhopal gas survivors for justice before he had graduated from law school. Prof. Upendra Baxi, former Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University and a legal advisor to survivors' organizations, was a visiting professor at Mr. Sharma's law school where he offered a seminar on the "Jurisprudence of the Bhopal catastrophe." In this independent study project, Mr. Sharma conducted extensive research on the available facts and applicable law of the Bhopal catastrophe and presented a term paper entitled, "Denial of Justice: Multinational Liability & The Bhopal Disaster" which outlined a proposed legal initiative for offering redress to victims of the worst industrial catastrophe in history. Instead of taking up a summer job after his second year of law school, Mr. Sharma went to Bhopal to meet with the survivors' organizations and their support organizations. With their assistance and cooperation, over a few subsequent visits in the next few years, he was able to compile critical evidence for the case against Union Carbide, collect much useful documentation as well as to select individual plaintiffs from among the victim community that were most representative of those affected by the catastrophe.

Background and history of the class action suit

The suit mainly alleged that:
A. Union Carbide demonstrated reckless or depraved indifference to human safety and life in the design, operation and maintenance of its MIC facilities in Bhopal as well as its safety mechanisms.
B. UCC pursued a systematic policy of racial discrimination in the design, construction and operation of the Bhopal factory.
C. Union Carbide demonstrated reckless or depraved indifference to human life in the manufacturing, storage, treatment and disposal practices at the UCIL plant, resulting in severe contamination of the soil and water in and around the UCIL plant.
D. Union Carbide and Anderson were and are fugitives from the lawful jurisdiction of the Bhopal District Court where criminal charges remain pending against them.

The suit was based on the legal provisions under US law ff Alien Torts Claims Act [ATCA]. ATCA provides for civil remedies for 'crimes against humanity' [atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against a civilian population,] committed by a US agency in a US court. Other supporting legislation include: customary international law; common law of the United States of America, common law of the State of New York; Universal Declaration ff Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on The Human Environment.

The suit sought the federal court's decree directing UCC and Anderson to pay exemplary punitive damages in amounts to be proven in trial.

The plaintiffs and co-plaintiff [eri]:
Seven individual victims and five organizations (Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Udyog Sangathan (BGPMUS), Gas Peedit Nirashrit Pension Bhogi Sangharsh Morcha (GPNPBSM), Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmachari Sangh (BGPMSKS), Bhopal Gas Peedit Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti (BGPSSS), and Bhopal Group For Information and Action (BGIA) are the Plaintiffs. Earth Rights International is a friend of the court.

The suit was filed on behalf of:
a. All persons who suffered personal injuries as a result of exposure to the MIC gas
b. All persons who are entitled to recover damages for losses caused by death of their relatives
c. All persons who were exposed to MIC as set forth above but whose injuries have not yet manifested themselves
d. All persons not yet born whose injuries will manifest themselves as congenital birth defects resulting from exposure to MIC
e. All persons who continue to be exposed to toxic effluents, chemical by-products and other hazardous agents as a result of ongoing environmental pollution at Union Carbide's facility in Bhopal

The judge and those on the appellate bench:
John Keenan SDNY : LEVAL, POOLER, and SACK of Second Circuit Court of Appeal

Important events with dates:

Nov. 15, 1999 - Class action complaint is filed
Nov. 18, 1999 - Effective service of process on Carbide is accomplished at their Danbury offices.
Nov. 21, 1999 - Process servers inform plaintiffs' counsel at GLRS that Anderson's Long Island address is a vacant lot.
Nov. 25, 1999 - Process servers inform plaintiffs' counsel at GLRS that service on the New York condo is not effective service since its only a mailing address.
March 8,2000 - Mr. Krohley indicates to GLRS that they would, now, be willing to accept service on behalf of Warren Anderson and tried to suggest that he had not been evading service but has had "some heart trouble" lately.
August 28, 2000 - Mr. John F. Keenan dismissed the class action suit mainly on the ground that the Bhopal Act [Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985] prevented individuals or organizations outside the Government of India from bringing an action against Union Carbide or its official.
October 2000 - Appeal against Judge Keenan's decision filed before the Second Circuit Court of Appeal of the US Federal Court. Futile requests to the Indian government, over several months, to file an amicus curae before the Court of Appeal to clarify the role and scope of the Bhopal Act in support of the appeal.
November 15, 2001 - The Second Circuit Court of Appeal part affirmed and part dismissed the decision of Judge Keenan's court. Claims under seven counts regarding contamination of ground water and soil in and
around the factory and consequent health damages are directed to Keenan for re-consideration. Plaintiffs file motion to discovery.
April, 2002 - In the ongoing discovery proceedings before Judge Keenan Union Carbide submitted over 4000 pages of company documents.
June 2002 - in response to a petition moved under Rule 56 [f] by plaintiff's attorney on June 20, 2002 Judge Keenan has directed Union Carbide to provide additional documentation related to the case. Union Carbide obeyed this order.
September 20, 2002 - plaintiffs and their attorney Mr. Raj Sharma filed affidavits on the basis of about 100 "smoking gun" documents before Keenan.
March 18, 2003 - John F. Keenan again dismisses the suit, this time because "Plaintiffs' claims are untimely and directed at improper parties. Union Carbide has met its obligations to clean up the contamination in and near the Bhopal plant. Having sold their shares long ago and having no connection to or authority over the plant, they cannot be held responsible at this time."
April, 2003 - Appeal against Judge Keenan's decision filed before the Second Circuit Court of Appeal of the US Federal Court. Plaintiffs call Keenan's decision a “glaring instance of juridical prejudice”.
October 17, 2003 - Leading Congressman Frank Pallone and eight other US lawmakers file an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals, asserting, "It is unacceptable to allow an American company not only the opportunity to exploit international borders and legal jurisdictions but also the ability to evade civil and criminal liability for environmental pollution and abuses committed overseas."
October 31, 2003 - Second Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral arguments.

Selected Press Coverage:

November 1999 Reuters article on the filing of the suit
December 2000 overview of the Bhopal legal history, including remarks by H R Sharma
December 2001 Frontline magazine article on the ramifications of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's November decision
December 2001 opinion in The Hindu on the Second Circuit Court of Appeal decision
December 2002 the New Scientist reports on new evidence raised by the discovery documents. The piece provoked a response from Carbide's lawyers, and a counter-response from the ICJB.
December 2002 Frontline article on the implications of the Carbide documents discovered in the case
December 2002 interview with H R Sharma in Frontline
March 2003 the Tribune looks critically at the role of Indian officials in Judge Keenan's March decision
March 2003 coverage of the survivors' intent to appeal Judge Keenan's decision
November 2003 in depth coverage in Frontline of the October amicus brief filed by US Congresspersons

www.rajansharma.com