Enough proof to seek Anderson’s extradition: Vahanvati to Govt

In his legal opinion,the country’s top law officer has also observed that though Anderson is of old age,something that would also be his defence if he stood trial,a “message must be sent that justice,though belated,can still be done to these hapless and helpless victims” in the light of the fact that the Bhopal gas leak tragedy was the “worst industrial disaster in human history”,where “thousands of lives have been affected”.

In his 13-page opinion,Vahanvati has also asked the government to prepare a detailed dossier of evidence showing the complicity of Anderson,“succinctly” pointing out that he had the necessary knowledge of the operational defects in the Bhopal plant and “that the omission to take any rectification action despite such knowledge would clearly constitute an offence under Section 304 Part II (of the IPC)”.

The dossier,the opinion says,should also indicate that Anderson’s action,or the lack of it,translates into the offence of manslaughter. He has also asked the government to take the services of a competent US attorney to assess the material from the US law perspective.

The US government has repeatedly refused to extradite Anderson on the plea that the request in this regard from the Indian government didn’t meet the requirements of the Indo-US Extradition Treaty,which was signed on September 14,1999.

Vahanvati has also opined that Anderson’s extradition should be sought for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,which carries a maximum imprisonment of 10 years.

“In my opinion,there is prima facie material. Although Mr. Anderson never stood trial along with the other accused and the letters rogatory issued by the Bhopal Trial Court are not yet answered by the US Authorities/Courts,nevertheless the evidence which has emerged in the course of trial of the other accused persons and the judgment of the trial court dated 07.06.2010 unmistakably points to the commission of an offence under Section 304 Part II. The evidence discussed by the learned trial court also clearly shows the commission of offence of Section 304 Part II not only of other accused but also of the UCC management including Mr Anderson,” the opinion says.

In recommending that Anderson continued to be an accused under Section 304 Part II,Vahanvati has disagreed with an opinion on the same subject given by former attorney general Soli Sorabjee on July 31,1998,in which he had said that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court,watering down charges against some of the accused,the extradition request for Anderson should be limited to Section 304A of the IPC.

Vahanvati has said that Anderson cannot claim the benefit of the Supreme Court judgment as he was not a party to the case.