By IANS,
New Delhi : Vowing to press for harsher sentence for those convicted in the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy after a Supreme Court setback in the case, the government Thursday said an early hearing would be sought on its revision petition in a Madhya Pradesh court.
“The Supreme Court order does not end the case as two petitions are pending in the local court in Bhopal. It is not as though we have reached the end of the road,” Home Minister P. Chidambaram said.
He was speaking to reporters a day after the Supreme Court turned down a government petition requesting to upgrade the charges for the seven executives who were found guilty last year of negligence in the December 1984 disaster that killed thousands of people.
He insisted that the Supreme Court ruling against a curative petition was not the end of the road and said it had endorsed the stand taken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the case.
Chidambaram said the CBI’s two petitions pending in the Bhopal sessions court were for review of the magistrate’s order and to seek graver charges of culpable homicide against the convicted executives. This would carry a maximum sentence of 10 years.
The seven were convicted of negligence and handed sentences of two years in prison that sparked a public fury as it was perceived too less after 25 years of the disaster.
“The government will request the CBI to move the sessions court in Bhopal for early hearing for its revision application and appeal and seek relief in the court to try the accused for graver charges,” he said.
“The government is happy to note that the judgment of the Supreme Court has endorsed the stand taken by the CBI,” he said.
Asked if it was after a public outcry that the government had filed the curative petition on a 1996 judgment, Chidambaram said: “It will be naive on my part to say that public outcry did not play its part.”
Chidambaram, who headed the Group of Ministers (GoM) that had suggested filing of the curative petition in the Supreme Court, said it was decided on the basis of Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati’s opinion that there was “sufficient ground” for it.