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

Savarkar 'criminally betrayed' Netaji and his INA by siding with the British rulers

By Shamsul Islam*
RSS-BJP rulers of India have been trying to show off as great fans of Netaji. But Indians must know what role ideological parents of today's RSS/BJP played against Netaji and Indian National Army (INA). The Hindu Mahasabha and RSS which always had prominent lawyers on their rolls made no attempt to defend the INA accused at Red Fort trials.

India under Modi among top 10 autocratizing nations, on verge of 'losing' democracy status

By Rajiv Shah
A new report, prepared by a top Swedish institute studying liberal democracy, has observed that there has been a sharp “dive in press freedom along with increasing repression of civil society in India associated with the current Hindu-nationalist regime of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.” The report places India among the top 10 countries that “have autocratized the most”. Other countries that have been identified for rolling towards autocracy are -- Hungary, Turkey, Poland, Serbia, Brazil, Mali, Thailand, Nicaragua and Zambia.

RSS supremo Deoras 'supported' Emergency, but Indira, Sanjay Gandhi 'didn't respond'

By Shamsul Islam*
National Emergency was imposed on the country by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on June 25-26, 1975, and it lasted for 19 months. This period is considered as ''dark times' for Indian democratic polity. Indira Gandhi claimed that due to Jaiprakash Narayan's call to the armed forces to disobey the 'illegal' orders of Congress rulers had created a situation of anarchy and there was danger to the existence of Indian Republic so there was no alternative but to impose Emergency under article 352 of the Constitution.

Letter to friends, mentors: Coming together of class, communal, corona viruses 'scary'

By Prof (Dr) Mansee Bal Bhargava*
COVID greetings from Ahmedabad to dear mentors and friends from around the world…
I hope you are keeping well and taking care of yourself besides caring for the people around you. I’m writing to learn how is the science and the society coping with the prevention and cure of the pandemic. I’m also writing to share the state of the corona virus that is further complicated with the long-standing class and communal viruses.

Hurried nod to Western Ghat projects: 16 lakh Goans' water security 'jeopardised'

Counterview Desk
Taking strong exception to "virtual clearances" to eco-sensitive projects in the Western Ghats, the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) in a statement has said urged for a review of the four-lane highway, 400 KV transmission line and double tracking of the railway line through the Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary and Mollem National Park in Goa.

Disturbing signal? Reliance 'shifting focus' away from Indian petrochemical sector

By NS Venkataraman*
Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), a large Indian company, has expanded and grown in a spectacular manner during the last few decades, like of which no industrial group in India has performed before. RIL is now involved in multi various activities relating to petroleum refineries, petrochemicals, oil and gas exploration, coal bed methane, life sciences, retail business, communication network, (Jio platform) media/entertainment etc.

Case for nationalising India's healthcare system amidst 'strong' private control

Counterview Desk
A draft discussion note, prepared by Dr Maya Valecha, a Gujarat-based gynecologist and activist, sent to the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) as also a large number of activists, academics and professionals as an email alert, is all set to create a flutter among policy experts for its strong insistence on nationalizing India’s healthcare system.

Oxfam on WB project: ICT 'ineffective', privatised learning to worsen gender divide

By Rajiv Shah 
A top multinational NGO, with presence in several developed and developing countries, has taken strong exception to the World Bank part-funding Strengthening Teaching-Learning and Results for States (STARS) project in six Indian states – Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Odisha – for its emphasis on information and communication technology (ICT)-enabled approaches for teacher development, student assessment and digital platform for early childhood education.

Coal blocks for tycoons: Rinchi village tribals may be declared forest land encroachers

By Gladson Dungdung*
On June 18, 2020, the Government of India initiated the process for auctioning 41 coal blocks for commercialisation. These coal blocks are located in different states within India and most of them fall under Fifth Schedule areas. The Indian government claims that their decision to auction these coal areas is a big step towards making the country Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant) in the energy sector.