Skip to main content

Tata Mundra lawsuit: US SC hears arguments against World Bank funders' total immunity

Counterview Desk
Earth Rights International (ERI), a US-based non-governmental, nonprofit organization, specializing in fact-finding, legal actions against perpetrators of earth rights abuses, training grassroots and community leaders, and advocacy campaigns, with offices in Southeast Asia, the United States and Peru, is involved in fighting a crucial lawsuit that will determine whether international organizations, like the World Bank Group, are absolutely immune from lawsuits in the United States.
The lawsuit, Jam v International Finance Corporation (IFC), involves the World Bank's private lending arm, IFC-financed, coal-fired power plant in Kutch, India. The plaintiffs allege that improper design and construction has led to devastating impacts on the local fishing and farming communities. They originally tried to resolve these issues through the IFC’s own compliance office, and reluctantly filed suit as a last resort.
The legal principle involved, however, extends beyond this case; absolute immunity would prohibit any suit for negligence at the Washington DC headquarters of an international organization, or for injuries from motor vehicle accidents. The US government, which is supporting the plaintiffs at the Supreme Court, pointed this out during the oral arguments, which took place in the US Supreme Court, on October 31.
At the Supreme Court, some justices expressed skepticism of the IFC’s position. When the IFC’s counsel argued that Congress had intended to give international organizations “virtually absolute immunity,” and not simply the same immunity that foreign governments enjoy, Justice Elena Kagan asked, “Why didn’t Congress just say that?”
A decision can be expected by June 2019.

After the arguments ended, those involved in fighting the case gave following statements:

  • “People in Kutch have already lost whatever they had. Through this case, we want to ensure that future communities will not face what we faced.” – Dr. Bharat Patel, the head of fishworkers’ rights group MASS, one of the plaintiffs in the case
  • “If the IFC had proactively addressed these issues, we probably would not be in court today. IFC was so emboldened by the immunity it enjoyed, that they ignored the findings and the requests of the people affected by their investment. We hope this case will put an end to that.” – Joe Athialy, Executive Director of the Centre for Financial Accountability, India
  • “Immunity from all legal accountability does not further the development goals of international organizations. It simply leads them to be careless, which is what happened here. Just like every other institution, from governments to corporations, the possibility of accountability will encourage these organizations to protect people and the environment.” – Marco Simons, General Counsel, Earth Rights International
  • “The commercial activities of international organizations such as the IFC can have a significant impact on lives of Americans and others around the world. It's therefore critically important for the Supreme Court to reject the notion that these institutions have greater legal immunity for these activities than even foreign countries have.”– Prof. Jeffrey Fisher, Co-Director, Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

An ERI note on the case:

From the start, the IFC recognized that the Tata Mundra coal-fired power plant was a high-risk project that could have significant adverse impacts on local communities and their environment. Despite knowing the risks, the IFC provided a critical $450 million loan in 2008, enabling the project’s construction and giving the IFC immense influence over project design and operation. 
Yet the IFC failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harms it predicted and failed to ensure that the project abided by the environmental and social conditions of IFC involvement.
As predicted, the plant has caused significant harm to the communities living in its shadow. Construction of the plant destroyed vital sources of water used for drinking and irrigation. Coal ash has contaminated crops and fish laid out to dry, air pollutants are at levels dangerous to human health, and there has already been a rise in respiratory problems.
The enormous quantity of thermal pollution – hot water released from the plant – has destroyed the local marine environment and the fish populations that fishermen like Mr. Jam rely on to support their families. Although a 2015 law required all plants to install cooling towers to minimize thermal pollution by the end of 2017, the Tata plant has failed to do so.
The IFC’s own internal compliance mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), issued a scathing report in 2013 confirming that the IFC had failed to ensure the Tata Mundra project complied with the environmental and social conditions of the IFC’s loan at virtually every stage of the project and calling for the IFC to take remedial action.
The IFC responded to the CAO by rejecting most of its findings and ignoring others. In a follow-up report in early 2017, the CAO observed that the IFC remained out of compliance and had failed to take any meaningful steps to remedy the situation.
The harms suffered by the plaintiffs are all the more regrettable because the project made no economic sense from the beginning. Last year, in fact, Tata Power began trying to unload a majority of its shares in the project for 1 rupee (a few cents) because of the losses it has suffered and will suffer going forward. At the moment, the plant is operating at only 1/5 capacity in part because India has an oversupply of electricity.
Against this background, several individuals harmed by the plant, as well as MASS and a local village, filed suit against the IFC in US federal court in 2015. EarthRights International filed the suit in Washington, DC, where the IFC is headquartered. The federal district court ruled that the IFC had immunity from suit and dismissed the case in 2016; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit affirmed the decision in 2017.
The DC circuit ruled that the IFC had “absolute immunity” and could not be sued for its role in the project. The court acknowledged, however, the “dismal” situation the project has created for the plaintiffs and their community, including the destruction of their livelihoods, property, and the serious threats to their health, and noted the IFC did not deny those harms. The communities sought review of that decision by the US Supreme Court.
The central legal question the Supreme Court will consider is how to interpret the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), a 1945 US law that gives international organizations “the same immunity” from lawsuits “as is enjoyed by foreign governments.” In 1952, the U.S. government began restricting the immunities given to foreign governments, and in 1976 Congress passed a law that allowed lawsuits for injuries in the United States and commercial activities of foreign states.
Congress was motivated in part by the prospect of immunity for traffic accidents and other injuries in Washington, DC, as well as the fact that foreign states were increasing engaging in operations like commercial lending in the same manner as private banks.
The DC Circuit, however, decided that international organizations are entitled to the immunities that foreign states received in 1945, and further ruled that in 1945 that meant “absolute immunity.” This interpretation of the law gives international organizations substantially broader immunity than that of foreign governments.
The plaintiffs have argued – and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held – that the IOIA should be read to give international organizations only the same restrictive immunity of foreign governments. Since a foreign government would not be immune from this suit, the IFC, which is made up of foreign states, should not be immune either.
The IFC is headquartered in Washington, DC, along with the rest of the World Bank Group, because the U.S. is by far the largest shareholder in these organizations. The US government, however, has long supported the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law, that international organizations can be sued for their commercial activities or for causing injuries in the United States. The Departments of Justice and State submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of this position, as did members of Congress from both parties.

Comments

TRENDING

It's now official: Developed Gujarat's regular, casual workers earn less than 19 top states

By Rajiv Shah
Though not as low as state chief minister Vijay Rupani claims it to be (0.9%), Gujarat’s unemployment rate, at least as reflected in a recent report released by the Government of India, is 4.8%, lower than the national average, 6%. Yet, ironically, the same report, released soon after the Lok Sabha polls came to an end in May 2019, brings to light an even grimmer reality: Lower wages in "model" and "developed" Gujarat compared to virtually the whole of India, including the so-called Bimaru states.

Telangana govt proposes to give unfettered powers to forest officials, 'help' corporates

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao*
The Telangana Government is contemplating to replace the Telangana Forest Act 1967 with a new law - the Telangana Forest Act (TFA) 2019, trampling the rights of adivasis ensured under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA Act 2006) and Panchayats Extension to Schedule Area (PESA) Act 1996 both of which are central acts.

RSS, Hindu Mahasabha were 'subservient' to British masters: Nagpur varsity VC told

Counterview Desk
Well-known political scientist Shamsul Islam, associate professor (retired), University of Delhi, in an open letter to the vice-chancellor of the Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Dr Siddharthavinayaka P Kane, has taken strong exception to the varsity decision to include RSS’ “role” in nation building in the syllabus of the BA (history) course, citing instances to say that the RSS ever since its birth in 1925 with its Hindutva allies like Hindu Mahasabha led by VD Savarkar worked overtime to “betray the glorious anti-colonial freedom struggle”.

Amaravati: World Bank refusing to share public grievances on Land Pooling Scheme

By Our Representative
A new report, prepared by the advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), New Delhi, has taken strong exception to the World Bank refusing to share its independent assessment of the Land Pooling Scheme (LPS), floated by the Andhra Pradesh government in order to build the new capital.

British companies export 'deadly' asbestos to India, other countries from offshore offices

By Rajiv Shah
“The Sunday Times”, which forms part of the powerful British daily, “The Times”, has raised the alarm that though the “deadly” asbestos is banned in Britain, companies registered in United Kingdom, and operating from other countries, “are involved in shipping it to developing nations”, especially India. India, Brazil, Russia and China account for almost 80% of the asbestos consumed globally every year, it adds.

Beijing-based infrastructure bank 'funding' India's environmentally risky projects

By Our Representative
A new civil society note has questioned the operations of the Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a multilateral development bank that aims to support the building of infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region, seeking to fund projects in India through the Government of India’s National Infrastructure Investment Fund (NIIF), calling it “a risky venture”.

Include all workers exposed to silica dust in anti-TB programme: Govt of India told

Counterview Desk
In a letter, sponsored by well-known civil rights organization, Occupational & Environmental Health Network of India and signed by more than 60 professionals and activists*, Dr Harsh Vardhan, Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, has been told that Indian policy makers shouldn't just acknowledge higher TB risk to mine and stone crusher workers, but also “other silica-exposed workers”.

Universal healthcare? India lacks provisions to 'fight' non-communicable diseases

By Moin Qazi*
Universal health coverage (UHC) -- ensuring that all people receive proper and adequate health care without suffering financial hardship -- is an integral part of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. It enables countries to make the most of their strongest asset: human capital.

Polygamy in India "down" in 45 yrs: Muslims' from 5.7 to 2.55%, Hindus' 5.8 to 1.77%, "common" in SCs, STs

By Rajiv Shah
Amidst All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) justifying polygamy, saying it “meets social and moral needs and the provision for it stems from concern and sympathy for women”, facts suggest the the practice is down from 5.7 per cent of Muslim families in 1961 to 2.55 per cent in 2006.

TISS Hyderabad: Burden of funds cut falls on students from 'marginalized' sections

Counterview Desk
Top activists associated with the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), a civil society network, including Medha Patkar, Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, Shankar Singh, Dr Binayak Sen, and Prafulla Samantara, has protested against the decision of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) administration for “sine die” closure of TISS, Hyderabad Campus, even as “denying” hostel access to Dalit and Adivasi students.