IS THE INDIAN NUCLEAR LAW MEANT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD? – IS IT NOT AN IMMUNITY IN THE NAME OF LIABILITY – A CRITIQUE
By Dr T Padma., LLM., Ph D (Law)
“I do not know what the third world war will be fought with, but the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones.” –Albert Einstein
The word environment is a broad spectrum which brings within its hue hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance. Saving this planet Earth is now of utmost concern to the entire humanity. The world is witnessing a global crisis of environmental degradation. The future of the earth is entirely linked with the sustainable development that may take place in the various countries, both developed and developing. They have to adopt a visionary approach in consonance with the needs of the man and the earth. There is human threat to air, water and land.
India had been under the colonial rule for about two centuries and even prior to that there were minor kingdoms which did not pay attention to any sort of environmental concerns. After the independence the primary concern of the administrators was to eradicate poverty. Millions of people were below the poverty line and the literacy rate was also very poor. The population growth was at alarmingly high rate. All these factors contributed to serious environmental degradation and the persons who were mostly affected by this environmental degradation were the poor and the disadvantage sections of the society. They were the first victims of the poor sanitation, bad air, contaminated water, scarce food, fuel and fodder. For millions of Indians their only wealth and common property resources were threatened by environmental degradation.
India in 2008 signed a landmark civil nuclear deal with United States but its implementation hit a roadblock owing to mounting opposition from Indian political groups following a verdict by court on the Bhopal gas disaster that was soft on the UCC responsible for the Bhopal accident in 1984.
America's General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Corp. are among the foreign energy suppliers that stand to gain a share of India's civilian nuclear business estimated as possibly reaching $150 billion a year.
India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 is meant to pave the way for India to sign International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) treaty, which seeks to establish a uniform global legal regime for the compensation of victims in the event of a nuclear accident. After the enactment of the Act on 22/09/2010, India signed the IAEA’s Convention on 27/10/2010 on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) treaty, ahead of US President, Barack Obama’s November, 2010 visit to India. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 raises some crucial questions for India.
1) whether or not the liability under the Act and the pre-existing IAEA’s compensation treaty in the supreme interest of present and future generation of Indians?
2) If India decides to join the CSC, it will be an exercise in surrendering its sovereignty to a conflict of interest ridden regime like IAEA which is both the promoter and regulator of nuclear commerce.
3) Will the Act strengthen the nuclear power industry in India by facilitating the flow of technology and machinery from Western countries?
4) Will it take away the expected benefit, because of liability provisions stipulated therein, which are considered as impediments for entry of suppliers?
5) Whether the Government of India did yield to pressures from various quarters and has strengthened the provisions of liability compared to the earlier draft, albeit only slightly!
6) Whether supplying defective machinery, itself, with or without contract, with or without negligence, makes the supplier liable under general principles of liability.
7) Whether we need to learn any new lessons in the light of the recent nuclear crisis in Japan after the tsunami, to fine-tune our existing emergency preparedness in the country?
Legal Principles Involved
1) Absolute Liability
Rylands vs. Fletcher, the celebrated UK case decided in 1868, laid down a cardinal rule, “A person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” In other words, the duty is not merely the general negative duty to refrain from active injury, but, a positive duty to guard and protect one’s neighbours, lest they suffer harm by reason of dangerous things artificially brought on one’s land – and the duty is absolute because it is independent of any negligence on the part of the defendant or his servants. This rule is referred to as the rule of “strict liability” or “absolute liability”. It is also referred to as “no fault liability”, where the wrong-doer will be liable with or without proof of fault by the claimant. However, it does recognize some exceptions also.
In the Indian context, the Supreme Court laid down the principle of “absolute liability” in Shriram Gas Leak case [M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India] thus: “Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to any one on account of an accident or in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting for example, escape of toxic gas, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortuous principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.” Furthermore, the Parliament has codified the principle of absolute liability by enacting the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991. Section 3 of the said Act says that, in any claim the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death, injury or damage in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of any persons.
2) Producer’s Liability
After strict liability, the concept of strict “Product Liability” was developed in Donogue vs. Stevenson, another well-known case. It is a kind of product related strict liability, which exempts non-interfering middle agencies such as links between maker and seller. The House of Lords held that a manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the consumer in the form in which they left him, owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care. There is no contractual duty in this situation as there was no contract at all. But a tortuous duty is presumed by courts of law, breach of which makes the manufacturer liable. From this, emerged the “Consumer Rights and Product liability” rule. Applying this principle, if, a nuclear reactor is defective, and that causes an accident, more than an operator it is the maker or supplier who should take up the responsibility of defective product i.e., the reactor.
3) Public Trust Doctrine- American Courts
The American courts developed a Public Trust Doctrine to the effect that the resources like air, sea, water and forests were of such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. These resources were the gifts of nature and they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. State has the duty to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their exploitation for commercial purposes by private owners. The American courts emphasized that protection from ecological pollution was among the purposes of public trust.
Environmental Law in the Indian context
Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution gives the right to citizens to approach the High Court and Supreme Court respectively to enforce their fundamental rights. It is also to be noted that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees one of the important fundamental right to the citizens and says that no person shall be deprived of his life "right to life" contained in Article 21 has been given a very wide interpretation by the Supreme Court of India. Article 48-A which is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy states that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Part IV–A was added to the Constitution by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 51-A(g) thereof specifically says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
One of the earliest cases which came to the Supreme Court of India was Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Vardhichand followed by a series of other public interest litigations concerning vehicular pollution, illegal mining, pollution of Ganga water, pollution of water by tanneries, Taj Mahal. In many of these cases, Expert Committee were constituted and the court expanded the scope of Article 32 and said that in appropriate cases the court can award compensation to the affected party deviating from the established principles of exceptions to the ‘Rule of strict liability’ laid down in Rylands vs Fletcher.
The position taken by the American Courts was quoted by the Indian Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath. Subsequently the Hinch Lal Tiwari v Kamala Devi and others, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the view stating:
“It is important to notice that material resources of the community like forests, ponds, hillock, mountains etc., are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality of life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
In its efforts to protect the environment, the Indian Judiciary in general have relied on the ‘public trust doctrine’, ‘precautionary principle’, ‘polluter pays principle’, ‘the doctrine of strict and absolute liability’, ‘the exemplary damages principle’, ‘the pollution fine principle’ and ‘inter-generational equity principle’ apart from the existing law of the land. Another guiding principle has been that of adopting a ‘model of sustainable development’. The consistent position adopted by the courts as enunciated in one of its judgments has been that there can neither be development at the cost of the environment or environment at the cost of development.
Bhopal Gas Disaster
The Bhopal disaster is the world's worst industrial catastrophe happened on 2/3 December, 1984. A leak of ‘methyl isocyanate’ gas and other chemicals from the plant resulted in the exposure of hundreds of thousands of people during 1984. Immediate death toll was 2,259 and total deaths were more than 15,000. Leakage caused injuries to 5,58,125 persons. The case was settled at a total claim of $ 470 million. Indian Supreme Court upheld this amount by dismissing all other outstanding petitions against UCC.
UCC Chairman and CEO Warren Anderson was arrested and released on bail by the Madhya Pradesh Police in Bhopal on December 7, 1984. The arrest, which took place at the airport, ensured Anderson would meet no harm by the Bhopal community. Anderson was taken to UCC's Guest house after which he was released six hours later on $2,100 bail and flown out on a Government plane.
In June 2010 (after 25 years), seven former employees of the Union Carbide subsidiary, all Indian nationals and many in their 70s, were convicted of causing death by negligence and each sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined ` 1 lakh. All were released on bail shortly after the verdict.
Union Carbide sold its Indian subsidiary, which had operated the Bhopal plant, to Eveready Industries India Limited, in 1994. Dow Chemical Company purchased UCC in 2001 for $10.3 billion in stock and debt. Dow contends the UCC settlement payment fulfilled Dow's financial responsibility for the disaster.
After long waiting of 25 years the Victims have received a meager amount of compensation of ` 25,000 (approx) per head in two installments. This settlement reveals major deficiencies in our legal system and corroborates the view taken by the Union of India before the US Court “that the Indian judiciary has yet to reach maturity due to the restraints placed upon it due to the British Rule, and the Indian Courts are not up to the task of conducting the said litigation”.
It is not out of context to mention here that the Union Carbide Corporation was also in the business of nuclear power and its current owner, The Dow Chemicals Company (since February 6, 2001), too offers a range of nuclear grade resins that are designed and manufactured to meet the requirements of the nuclear power industry.
BP Oil Spill (USA)
BP Oil Spill is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. The spill stemmed from a sea-floor oil gusher that resulted from the April 20, 2010 explosion of Deepwater Horizon, which drilled on the British Petroleum -operated Macondo Prospect. The explosion killed 11 men working on the platform and injured 17 others. At the instance of President Obama, BP executives agreed and created a $ 20 billion spill response fund, within three month’s time from the accident.
A comparison of the above two cases would reveal how effective are we in India in settlement of the claims of the thousands of the Gas victims in Bhopal Disaster.
Indian Nuclear Law is Harsh to Whom?
The Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 in section 2 defined ‘accident’ as an accident involving a fortuitous, sudden or unintentional occurrence while handling any hazardous substance resulting in continuous, intermittent or repeated exposure to death of or injury to any person or damage to any property but does not include an accident by reason of war or radio activity. Two questions arise. First, why should not the State, whose sole responsibility is welfare of the people, give relief to the victims of “war”? And why should it exempt it from the definition of ‘accident’ which will deny the victims from claiming the damages under the mechanism provided by the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991? Second, even if it is assumed that the war is beyond control of State, why should it claim exemption from accidents of ‘radio activity’?
It is difficult to understand why the Government is insisting on proof of ‘intention’ in civil claim of damages. It is well within the logic and law to seek strict proof of intention and guilty mind of proof of intention and guilty mind of nuclear machinery supplier ‘to cause nuclear damage of particular people in India’ to make the operator or supplier of nuclear reactor to undergo life imprisonment or suffer death penalty. But, why the operator of a defective nuclear reactor, now Indian State or a government company be solely liable and US or French or other foreign nuclear reactor suppliers be totally exempt from liability in civil law for payment of damages? The Act [section 2(1)] defined ‘operator’ as the Central Government or any authority of corporation established by it or a Government company who has been granted a licence pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 for the operation of that installation.
Is it not the Immunity in the name of Liability?
The draft Bill (prior to changes) made the operator of a nuclear facility wholly liable for any damage stemming from an accident. However, responding to stiff resistance and to secure the necessary numerical strength to pass the Bill, the draft of section 17 was further changed, as:
Sec 17. The Operator of the Nuclear Installation after paying the compensation for nuclear damage in accordance with Section 6, shall have a right to recourse where:–
a) Such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing;
b) The Nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of suppliers or his employees, which includes supply of equipment or material or patent or latent defects or sub standard services;
c) The Nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of an individual done with the intent to cause nuclear damage.
However, by not incorporating ‘or’ between three sub-clauses the Act carried forward the ‘confusion’ as to interpretation, i.e., whether all three clauses need to be fulfilled or any one of them would be enough to impose liability on supplier. The ‘and’ is removed but ‘or’ is not added. Liability of supplier continues to be uncertain, even after the amendment.
Another improvised recommendation of Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) is to enhance the operator’s liability cap from ` 500 crore to ` 1500 crore. Total liability for each nuclear incident remains capped at 300 million SDRs (` 2122.40 crore or $ 455 million) as per clause 6(1). This amount is less than even the Bhopal settlement of $ 470 million, which has been acknowledged as grossly inadequate by the Government itself. The moot question before all of us is, how can anybody fix the quantum of damage of nuclear radioactivity or other accident in advance? And why should anybody fix such quantum. This is nothing but limiting the operator’s liability and also extending immunity beyond, which is not in tune with accepted liability jurisprudence.
India hasn't learned lessons of Bhopal
In December, 1984, India witnessed one of the greatest man-made calamities in Bhopal, the capital city of the State of Madhya Pradesh, from a factory owned by Union Carbide India Limited. Methyl Isocyanate, a highly poisonous gas leaked out and it resulted in the death of more than three thousand persons who were mostly the hutment-dwellers in the near vicinity of the factory. The air carried the leaked deadly poisonous gas to the thickly populated areas and about six lakhs people suffered various bodily injuries. Bhopal gas tragedy is described as another ‘Hiroshima of the Chemical Industry’, one of the worst commercial industrial disasters in history killing thousands of people as a consequence of corporate delinquency. The polluted site of the abandoned Union Carbide factory is still said to be poisoning the groundwater of the area.
The peculiar problem regarding the claim of compensation was involved because of such a large number of victims, most of those belonging to the lower economic strata. The Union of India filed a suit on behalf of all the claimants , against the UCC in the United States District Court of the New York. The UCC pleaded for the dismissal of the suit on the grounds of ‘ forum non conveniens’ i.e the suit can be more conveniently tried in India as apart from many other factors, India was the place of the catastrophe , and the plant personnel , victims , witnesses , documentary and all related evidence were located there. The Union of India, however, maintained that the Indian judiciary has yet to reach maturity due to the restraints placed upon it due to the British Rule, and the Indian Courts are not up to the task of conducting the said litigation. Judge Keenon accepted the plea of forum non conveniens put forward by UCC, rejected the plea of the Union of India and dismissed the Indian action on that ground. After the dismissal of the suit in U.S.A. the Union of India filed a suit in the District Court of Bhopal.
The Indian government after first suing the company for $3.3 billion in 1985, announced an out-of-court settlement of $470 million in February 1989. During 1996 the Apex Court’s ruling watered down the charges against the accused from culpable homicide (with maximum punishment of 10 years' jail term) to criminal negligence (maximum sentence two years).
The Indian Government continues to pursue criminal charges against the former Union Carbide Chairman, Warren Anderson. Newspapers have reported that the United States has rejected India's request to extradite Anderson, who has retired and lives in New York.
This Gas Tragedy resulted in an enactment of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 by the Indian Parliament.
None of the international nuclear liability conventions set any cap on total liability, but only set a floor. Countries like South Korea and Sweden have set operator’s liability at 300 million SDRs, not total liability. The operator’s liability in the US is $ 11.9 billion. Countries like Japan, Russia and Germany do not have any cap on total liability. In contrast, the Indian Bill seeks to cap total liability to 300 million SDRs, displaying scant regard for the lives and security of it’s people and the nation hasn't learned lessons even after Bhopal disaster.
Position of Corporate Criminal Liability in India
The Indian Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank observed that the view of different High Courts in India was very inconsistent on this issue. For example, in State of Maharasthra v. Syndicate Transport,the Bombay High Court had held that the company could not be prosecuted for offences which necessarily entailed corporal punishment or imprisonment; prosecuting a company for such offences would only result in a trial with a verdict of guilty and no effective order by way of a sentence. On the other hand, in Oswal Vanaspati & Allied Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the appellant-company had sought to quash a criminal complaint, arguing that the company could not be prosecuted for the particular criminal offence in question, as the sentence of imprisonment provided under that section was mandatory. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had disagreed:
“A company being a juristic person cannot obviously be sentenced to imprisonment as it cannot suffer imprisonment. . . . It is settled law that sentence or punishment must follow conviction; and if only corporal punishment is prescribed, a company which is a juristic person cannot be prosecuted as it cannot be punished. If, however, both sentence of imprisonment and fine is prescribed for natural persons and juristic persons jointly, then, though the sentence of imprisonment cannot be awarded to a company, the sentence of fine can be imposed on it. . . . Legal sentence is the sentence prescribed by law. A sentence which is in excess of the sentence prescribed is always illegal; but a sentence which is less than the sentence prescribed may not in all cases be illegal”.
The Indian Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank also referred to an old decision of the United States Supreme Court, United States v. Union Supply. In that case, a corporation was indicted for willfully violating a statute that required the wholesale dealers in oleomargarine to keep certain books and make certain returns. Any person who willfully violated this provision was liable to be punished with a fine of not less than fifty dollars and not exceeding five hundred dollars and imprisonment for not less than 30 days and not more than six months. It is interesting to note that for the offence under Section 5 of the statute at issue, the Court had discretionary power to punish by either fine or imprisonment, whereas under Section 6 of the statute (the section that was actually violated in Union Supply), both types of punishment were to be imposed in all cases. The corporation moved to quash the indictment, and the District Court quashed it on the grounds that Section 6 was not applicable to the corporations. The United States Supreme Court reversed the District Court's judgment. Justice Holmes held:
It seems to us that a reasonable interpretation of the words used does not lead to such a result. If we compare Section 5, the application of one of the penalties rather than of both is made to depend, not on the character of the defendant, but on the discretion of the Judge; yet, there, corporations are mentioned in terms. And if we free our minds from the notion that criminal statutes must be construed by some artificial and conventional rule, the natural inference, when a statute prescribes two independent penalties, is that it means to inflict them so far as it can, and that, if one of them is impossible, it does not mean, on that account, to let the defendant escape.
Now, the Indian Supreme Court has settled the disputed question of criminal liability of a corporation. The Standard Chartered Bank decision overrules prior decisions to the contrary and holds that corporations are liable for criminal offences and can be prosecuted and punished, at least with fines. As the human cost of industrial disasters have created a compelling logic to do away with the idea of limited liability to companies, the proposed Companies Amendment Bill,2009 should make a beginning in the form of class action Law suits, in order to make these legal-artificial persons accountable to our legislature.
The right to life is a fundamental right in India. So this macro-murder (Bhopal Gas Tragedy), the worst industrial carnage in history, is a huge blot. An untested facility was installed in India with no examination of the potential dangers, as if it were a mere soda factory. The act of installation in itself was a crime. A corporate Director usually does not personally commit crimes himself or herself. These are committed perhaps without their knowledge, but with their connivance and vicarious awareness. Nevertheless, culpability exists in a higher dimension of punitive jurisprudence. This is the basis of culpability in corporate crimes and offences. To plead that Union Carbide or Anderson did not physically switch on equipment or were not responsible for the acts of commission or omission that caused the leakage is no argument of innocence. But for the installation of such a facility, the deaths would not have happened. If a nuclear plant were set up that exploded and wiped out thousands of lives, those who set up and operated it are vicariously guilty, not by ‘mens rea’ but morally and legally.
Not with standing an express provision for the nuclear liability in any Indian law, the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, has been interpreted to include within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment from pollution.
The Supreme Court in the Oleum Gas Leak case ruled that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry with the potential to cause widespread environmental damage, owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone.
It was also held that in case of an
accident, irrespective of negligence, the enterprise shall be strictly and
absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected. As nuclear
enterprises deal with hazardous material which has the potential to cause
widespread environmental damage, under the present legal scenario, it would be
strictly liable to compensate all affected by a nuclear accident.
Another important environmental principle which has been recognised both in international law and domestic law is the ‘polluter pays principle’. This principle, adopted to further sustainable development, extends the liability of an enterprise not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. In ‘the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action case’, the Supreme Court applied this principle to hold that it is the polluting industry which will be liable for the damage it caused and not the government. Applying the polluter pays principle to nuclear liability, liability should lie exclusively with the nuclear enterprise and not the government.
On the topic of nuclear liability there are four major international conventions - the 1960 Paris Convention, the 1963 Vienna Convention, 1997 Protocol to amend Vienna Convention and the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). The CSC, which is still not in force, is only available to members of either the Paris or the Vienna conventions and countries that have enacted a domestic law in compliance with the law annexed to the CSC. As India is not party to any of these conventions, it has to get a national law which complies with the provisions of the CSC annex for it to be a party to the CSC. The CSC does not require a limit in the liability and provides for supplementary compensation which would be provided through contributions from the different state-parties.
The nuclear liability bill by capping the liability arising out of a nuclear incident appears to be an effort to protect the nuclear industry at the cost of the fundamental rights of the citizens. The nuclear liability Act presents a clear departure from the existing legal principles on liability applied by the Supreme Court. The rationale behind such an exception for the inherently hazardous nuclear industry is not clear. The premise that limiting liability is essential for joining an international convention like CSC does not have any merit as the convention does not require the state to limit the liability.
The rationale behind fixing the liability of the operators at a very low amount seems to be for allowing the nuclear operators to easily acquire the mandatory insurance cover required by the Act. With the passing of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, private companies are expected to start its operations in India. The Act seems to be an effort to lure foreign enterprises to enter the nuclear industry to meet India’s enormous energy requirements. However, to achieve this, the Act has burdened the taxpayer and has restricted the right of victims protected by the Constitution.
While British Petroleum (BP) is facing a bill of up to $34 billion from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster after US senators demanded the oil company deposited $20 billion (about ` 92000 crore) into a ring-fenced account to meet escalating compensation costs, the way Indian legislators are agreeing to a ` 1500 crore cap on nuclear disaster from large nuclear power plants, ` 300 crore cap for institutions involved in reprocessing fuel and ` 100 crore cap for small research reactors is not at all in the public interest or in the interest of people of India but to insulate the suppliers from their liabilities in case of any disaster/calamity.
Further, there is a very urgent need for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (sans conflict of interest) to probe and examine the current liability regime in general and nuclear liability regime in particular in the developed countries besides a High Powered Trans-disciplinary Independent Experts Committee preferably under the supervision of the UN to study the status of adverse enviro-occupational hazards world over.
In the light of the nuclear crisis in Japan after the tsunami, India should revisit all the safety aspects of its atomic plants in the country and fine-tune the existing emergency preparedness rather than Jumping to the conclusions that our power reactors will not suffer a similar kind of situation.
[Published in Supreme Court Journal / Weekly
March, 2011 PART-9]
 Rylands vs. Fletcher; (1868) LR 3 HK 330
 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India; (1987) 1 SCC 395, AIR 1987 Sc 965
 Donogue vs. Stevenson; 1932 AC 562
 Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622
 Rylands vs Fletcher; (1868) LR 3 HL 330
 M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
 Hinch Lal Tiwari v Kamala Devi and others (2001)6 SCC 496
 Excerpts from the pleadings of the Govt. of India before the United States District Court of New York.
 State of Maharasthra v. Syndicate Transport; (1963) Bom. L.R. 197
 Oswal Vanaspati & Allied Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh; (1993) 1 Comp.L.J. 172
 United States Supreme Court, United States v. Union Supply; 215 U.S. 50 (1909)
 Standard Chartered Bank and Ors v. Directorate of Enforcement; A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2622
 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India; AIR 1996 SC 1446