Punjab- Dangerous Turn

by US courts. However, there are strong arguments why it would be best to proceed against Union Carbide in Indian courts. For one thing, the disaster occurred in India and the victims are all here. Much of the material needed to prove the case against Union Carbide would be available in India. More important is the consideration that processing the case in Indian courts would set certain precedents which in turn would make for a restructuring and strengthening of the legal procedures for dealing with industrial disasters. Thus whatever the decision of the American court in the Bhopal case, industrial disasters such as the oleum leak at the Shriram plant in Delhi would still need to be brought before Indian courts without the advantage of an earlier legal precedent. If American laws are today better developed to deal with such cases it is because of a long history of establishing norms and principles through earlier court cases. Clearly, it is necessary to speedily evolve similar principles and norms here, for the Indian courts' present notions of culpability and damages in cases of industrial accidents are such that they offer paltry justice and recompense to the victims and constitute virtually no deter- rent to the owners and managers of industrial units in the matter of taking adequate safety precautions against industrial hazards and accidents.