Authority: Supreme Court of India (Justices PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA & ALOK ARADHE)

Order Date: 20 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Anr.; Respondents: Punya Salila Srivastava & Ors.
  • The petition is a contempt petition (Civil) Diary No. 39365/2025 filed under Writ Petition (C) No. 50 of 1998, alleging non‑compliance with the Supreme Court’s detailed directions dated 09‑08‑2012 in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
  • The 2012 directions encompassed transfer of the case to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, provision of office space and honorarium for monitoring committees, empowerment of the Monitoring Committee, research mandates to ICMR and NIREH, disposal of toxic waste from the Union Carbide plant, dissolution of the Bhopal Memorial Hospital Trust (BMHT), and audit requirements.
  • The contempt petition arose because the respondents were alleged to have failed to implement several of those directions.
  • Notice was issued to the alleged contemnors on 26‑09‑2025, requiring them to file short affidavits and a statement of grievances regarding non‑compliance.
  • Counter‑affidavits were filed jointly by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and separately by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
  • Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, highlighted the crucial 2012 directions and the respondents’ replies; Senior Counsel for the respondents and Additional Solicitor Generals (Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee and Mr. Anil Kaushik) also appeared, along with intervenor counsel Mr. Avi Singh.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petition, directing that:

(a) The counter‑affidavits of Respondents Nos. 1‑4 be transmitted to the Madhya Pradesh High Court and taken on record together with Writ Petition No. 15658 of 2012.

(b) The High Court shall consider the “Status of compliance of the Order dated 09.08.2012” – a tabulated report showing compliances and respondents’ replies – to facilitate examination of non‑compliances.

(c) The High Court must designate a bench (as indicated in the 2012 judgment) and hear the matter at least once every month.

(d) The designated bench shall hear all parties, allow the Union of India and the State Government to file additional affidavits, and examine the Monitoring Committee’s report.

(e) All pending interlocutory applications, including any intervention/impleadment applications, are disposed of.

  • The order reiterates that the 2012 directions remain in force and that the High Court now has supervisory jurisdiction to ensure their implementation.

Topics: Court Order, Compliance Monitoring, Bhopal Gas Relief