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

Whistle-blowing IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's wife suspects foul play after truck hits her car

By Nachiketa Desai*
Paranoia has seized Shweta Bhatt, wife of suspended Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Sanjiv Bhatt, after the car she was driving was rammed in broad day light. According to Shweta Bhatt, it was beacon light-flashing truck without registration number plate. The incident took place on January 7, just a day ahead of the Gujarat High Court was scheduled to take up the bail application of Sanjiv Bhatt, arrested last year for "involvement" in a 23-year-old case.

Call to support IIM-Bangalore professor, censured for seeking action against Uniliver

Counterview Desk
Sections of the Indian Institute of Managements (IIMs) across India have strongly reacted to the decision to censure Dr Deepak Malghan, a faulty at IIM-Bangalore. Prabhir Vishnu Poruthiyil, who is faculty at IIM-Tiruchirapalli, has sought wider solidarity with Dr Malghan, saying, "The administration has censured Deepak for merely suggesting a meaningful action against Hindustan Unilever for their abysmal environmental record" by “disinviting” it for campus placement.

Morari Bapu, who has installed new statues of Ram, Laxman, Hanuman without weapons

By Sandeep Pandey*
A saint is one who can give some inner peace by his/her voice. This will happen only when s(he) will talk about love and harmony. Morari Bapu is one saint who has been conveying the message of love, peace, harmony, fraternity, etc. Today when a number of saffron clad figures with aggressive posture, spewing venom, fanning hatred to polarise voters are at the forefront of politics of Hindutva it is a relief to see Morari Bapu in a different mould.

99% MGNREGA funds "exhausted", Govt of India makes no additional sanctions: Study

Counterview Desk
A letter, addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and prepared by senior activists led by Aruna Roy on behalf of the Peoples’ Action for Employment Guarantee (PAEG), and signed, among others, by 80 members of Parliament, has regretted that, despite repeated public statements by his government promising employment and job creation that will boost the country’s growth, the country’s only employment guarantee programme, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), “is being systematically undermined.”

Nuclear reactors sought from French giant "not safe": Letter to Modi on Jaitapur project

Counterview Desk
Amidst reports that the French nuclear giant EDF has submitted a “techno-commercial offer” for the world’s largest nuclear power park proposed in Maharashtra’s Jaitapur nuclear power park in Jaitapur on the Maharashtra coast, Dr EAS Sarma, India’s former Union Secretary in the Minister of Power, and an eminent voice in the civil society, has written an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who also heads Department of Atomic Energy (DAE),  protesting the move.

World Bank clarifies: Its 26th rank to India not for universal access to power but for ease of doing business

By Our Representative
In a major embarrassment to the Government of India, the World Bank has reportedly clarified that it has not ranked India 26th out of 130 countries for providing power to its population. The top international banker’s clarification comes following Union Power Minister Piyush Goyal’s claim that India has “improved to 26 position from 99” in access to electricity in just one year.

Kaiga NPP expansion: Karnataka to get just 400 MW, but lose thick forest, fresh water

Counterview Desk
In an open letter to the chairman and members of the Atomic energy Commission (AEC) on the issue of Kaiga nuclear power plant (NPP) expansion plan in Karnataka, Shankar Sharma, well-known power policy analyst, has argued that that in case of expansion, the site will face “exponential increase in radiation emission risks”, underlining, “Nuclear safety experts identify such a scenario as enhanced risk for NPPs with multiple reactors and shared technical facilities."
Sharma says the questions that also be asked whether Karnataka should lose more than 54 hectares of thick forests and about 152,304 cubic meters of fresh water per day from Kali river for a meager benefit of 400 MW from the Kaiga NPP, for which “there are many benign alternative options available for the state at much lower overall costs to the state.”
Text of the letter: This has reference to the public hearing under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Rule 2006 of Ministry of Environment, Fore…

Uttarakhand High Court: Biodiversity boards can impose fees on Ramdev's Divya Pharmacy

By Mridhu Tandon
In a significant decision, the Uttarakhand High Court on December 21, 2018 has dismissed the writ petition filed by Divya Pharmacy founded by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishnan, challenging the demand of the Uttarakhand Biodiversity Board (UBB) imposing fees under the provisions of the Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing (FEBS).

Modi becoming Prime Minister now appears to be an "accident" to the people of India

By Sandeep Pandey*
Anupam Kher's film 'Accidental Prime Minister' has targeted Dr Manmohan Singh who served for two terms and may be again acceptable for the job if his party regains power. But his tormentor Narendra Modi seems to be out of breath even before his first term is over. Disillusionment with him is so widespread and deep that people of India may not bear with him for another term. As the general elections approach again the difference between the two needs to be examined.

Story of a foot soldier of Gujarat riots coming from a vulnerable community, Chharas

By Rajiv Shah
He is one of the more prominent "foot soldiers" of the 2002 Gujarat riots. Suresh Jadeja, alias Langdo, alias Richard, is indeed a well-known name in the Naroda Patiya massacre case, in which 97 persons were killed on February 28, 2002, the first day of the riots that shook the nation. Ordinarily, such a person should have been subjected to sociological scrutiny. What have here is a keen journalistic account, with clear political-ideological overtone.