The judgment

As per the judgment on a local court pronounced the verdict which convicted Mr
Keshub Mahindra who was the non executive chairman of UCIL including 7 others in
the case relating to the leakage of poisonous gas methyl isocyanine gas on the
night between 2nd & 3ed Dec 1984.
As per the verdict they were held guilty under the following sections of the India
penal code
i)
ii)
iii)

sections 304-A ( causing death by negligence )

section 304-II ( Culpable homicide not amounting to murder)
Section 336,337,338 (gross negligence)

Following are the sentences awarded which would run concurrently

i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

Under section 304(a) they were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a

fine of 1 lakh each
Under section 336 , imprisonment of 3 months and a fine of Rs 250
Under section 337 ,imprisonment of 6 months and a fine of Rs 500
Under section 338 , imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of Rs 1000

The Analysis of the Conviction

-

Considering the consequences of the disaster which killed more than 25

thousand people & affected lakhs of people over the years , the conviction
was given for negligence rather than a culpable Homicide
the verdict came very late since it has been 23 years since the accident.
The punishment was given is at most a two year imprisonment with a fine,
which seems to be too little as compared to the severity of the accident . In a
similar situation in China where 6 babys died by drinking milk containing a
chemical & several thousand affected , two persons were executed & head of
the company was imprisoned for life.
The judgment is very diluted and it also sets as a precedent to consider
worst corporate crimes, nuclear disasters to be treated like an accident. But
this judgment is constrained because of the Supreme court judgment in 1996
had reduced the charges of manslaughter which is punishable up to 10 years
to death caused by negligence act ( which carries a maximum penalty of 2
years 0
As per the Company act 2013 the independent Director will be held liable
when any acts of omission or commission happened by a company and he
had knowledge of it obtained through Board processes.
If we analyze the position of Mr. Keshub Mahindra in the Bhopal tragedy
Against the backdrop of company act 2013 following are the

He was the Non executive Chairman of UCIL & used to preside over the Board
Meetings.
Before the tragedy it was well known that the gas was known to be
dangerous and there were strict procedures for storage like at what
temperature & pressure. None of the procedures were being followed as the
plant was to be dismantled and shipped out.
It was also known that the technology used in the plant was a discarded &
faulty technology
As a director of the company even though non executive it is no way that Mr.
Mahindra was not aware of the safety hazards of the plant. Even though he
was not involved in the day to day operation of the plant , but he was very
much aware of the poisonous nature of the gas & unsafe situation of the
plant.
So as per the Company Act 2013 as an Independent director he had the
knowledge of the unsafe nature of gas & the plant so he is liable on the
similar lines to that of other Directors .
He cannot deny of his responsibility in not having any knowledge of any
safety hazard in the company. Else he should not have continued as the
Director.
So he is liable for the conviction in the case

Reference
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/PUF9IutIhLhLDY7lVSGAtK/Bhopal-gas-tragedy-Keshub-Mahindra-among-8-found-guilty.html

http://www.rediff.com/money/column/guest-bhopal-why-india-needs-to-arrestkeshub-mahindra/20100623.htm