1 hr ago
Dow Chemical Challenges Jurisdiction Arguments In Bhopal Gas Disaster Trial
A court in Bhopal is deciding whether it can hear a criminal case involving Dow Chemical Company.
The case is connected to the gas disaster that happened in Bhopal in December 1984.
The Central Bureau of Investigation says the case should be tried in Bhopal because that is where the offence occurred.
Dow Chemical Company objected to this position.
A group representing Bhopal-related interests wants Dow to provide documents about its relationship with Union Carbide Corporation.
Dow says Union Carbide Corporation-America is a separate company.
The group says Dow has appeared in earlier court proceedings and should not now limit its participation only to the jurisdiction question.
The court is examining these arguments.
The Dow Chemical Company objected to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s argument that the case must be tried in Bhopal under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Bhopal District Court is considering whether Indian courts have jurisdiction over Dow Chemical Company in the criminal case linked to the December 1984 gas disaster.
The Bhopal Group for Information and Action urged Dow to produce documents concerning its merger and corporate integration with Union Carbide Corporation.
Dow maintains that Union Carbide Corporation-America is a separate company, while the group says Dow has refused to provide documents that could clarify the relationship.
The court heard arguments on whether Dow can make a limited appearance on jurisdiction after previously appearing before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court.
- Who
- The Dow Chemical Company, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Bhopal Group for Information and Action, and the Bhopal District Court.
- What
- The court heard arguments over whether Indian courts have jurisdiction over Dow Chemical Company in the criminal case related to the Bhopal gas disaster.
- Where
- Bhopal District Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
- When
- Thursday; the underlying disaster occurred in December 1984.
- Why
- The parties disagree over where the case should be tried, whether Dow is a successor or representative of Union Carbide Corporation, and whether it must produce corporate documents.
Jurisdiction And Corporate Accountability Arguments
Dow Chemical Company’s Objections
Where the case should be tried
Jurisdiction And Corporate Accountability Arguments
The Central Bureau of Investigation argues that under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence must be tried in Bhopal, where it was committed.
Dow Chemical Company’s Objections
Dow Chemical Company objected to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s position during the Bhopal District Court hearing.
Relationship with Union Carbide
Jurisdiction And Corporate Accountability Arguments
The Bhopal Group for Information and Action argues that Dow should provide documents showing its merger and corporate integration with Union Carbide Corporation, and says Dow should not limit its participation to jurisdiction alone.
Dow Chemical Company’s Objections
Dow Chemical Company claims that Union Carbide Corporation-America is a separate company and has objected to the proceedings concerning its jurisdiction.
Effect of earlier court appearances
Jurisdiction And Corporate Accountability Arguments
The Bhopal Group for Information and Action says Dow has repeatedly appeared before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court and cannot now make only a limited appearance on jurisdiction.
Dow Chemical Company’s Objections
Dow’s position in the hearing was presented as an objection to jurisdiction; the article does not state that Dow accepted the group’s interpretation of its earlier appearances.
Key facts
- Court
- Bhopal District Court
- Underlying event
- December 1984 Union Carbide Bhopal gas disaster
- Jurisdiction argument
- The Central Bureau of Investigation cited Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which it said requires an offence to be tried where it was committed.
- Dow’s position
- Dow Chemical Company objected to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s jurisdiction argument and maintains that Union Carbide Corporation-America is a separate company.
- Document dispute
- The Bhopal Group for Information and Action wants Dow to produce documents showing its merger and corporate integration with Union Carbide Corporation.
- Prior proceedings
- The article says Dow has appeared before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court.
- Service of summons
- Summons were served through India’s Ministry of Home Affairs and the United States Department of Justice; the latter raised no objection on jurisdiction when serving the notice.
Sources
Related news
CBI Backs Bhopal Court Jurisdiction in Dow Chemical Case
Jabalpur High Court Seeks Reports On Union Carbide Toxic Residue
Delhi High Court Questions Jurisdiction in HUL-Beco Ad Dispute
Supreme Court Orders Time-Bound Medical Hearings for Bhopal Gas Victims
Twisha Sharma’s Parents Seek Delhi Trial Transfer
Delhi High Court Rejects Vimal Elaichi Plea Over FDA Notices
Supreme Court Limitation Ruling Sparks Debate Over Public Assets
BCCI Reports ₹3,000 Crore Tax Payment Amid Sports Act Case
Mamata Takes TMC Name-Symbol Battle to Supreme Court
Karnataka Seeks Local Input Before Kasturirangan Decision Deadline
