Morbi Bridge Collapse : Supreme Court Allows Petitioners Seeking Independent Probe To Raise Issues Before Gujarat High Court

Taking note of the fact that the Gujarat High Court has already taken suo motu cognisance of the Morbi bridge collapse which took place on October 30 leaving 141 people dead, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain two petitions which sought for independent probe into the tragedy.

The Court however granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court to raise their issues, either by filing an independent writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or by intervening in the suo motu case.         

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli was considering a PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari and a petition filed Chavada Dilipbhai(who lost his brother and sister-in-law in the mishap). 

The bench also recorded the some issues highlighted by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for Chavada Dilipbhai, such as :

• the need for an independent investigation on acts/omissions which would amount to criminal wrong doing;
• the need to fix responsibility against officials of the Nagar Palika;
• the need to ensure that the agency which was entrusted with the task of maintaining  the bridge and its management are held accountable including but not confined to making arrests in the course of investigation;
• the award of reasonable compensation to the heirs of those who have lost lives in the tragedy.

While disposing of the petitions, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court should apply its mind regarding the above aspects raised by the petitioners.

"We are of the view that the High Court would also bring to bear its time and attention on other aspects of the matter which have been highlighted above while recording the submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner", the Supreme Court stated in the order.

The bench led by the CJI noted that the the High Court is monitoring various aspects of the matter almost on a weekly basis and that several aspects would require obtaining periodical responses from the officials of the State and the nagar palika. It further noted that the High Court "would undoubtedly be seized of ensuring a regulatory mechanism so that such incidents do no recur".

"Since the Division Bench led by the Chief Justice has already entertained suo motu proceedings, we are of the view of that the future conduct of the proceedings remain with that Division Bench of the High Court", the bench noted.

"We request High Court to take up the matter on a periodic basis", the bench added in the order.

Court room exchange.

When the matter was taken, the bench asked if any similar matter is pending before the Gujarat High Court. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the petitioners, replied that the High Court has taken a suo motu case on the issue, but the ambit of the petitions before the Supreme Court is different.

"It appears that the division bench of the High Court is taking a comprehensive view...", CJI Chandrachud observed after referring to the orders passed by the High Court so far.

Sankaranarayanan submitted that his petition is filed by a person((Chavada Dilipbhai) whose brother and sister-in-law got killed in the incident leaving behind a 9 year old child and that he is seeking a CBI investigation into the matter. He added that the High Court is not considering the issue relating to CBI probe.

The senior counsel said that the liability should have been fixed on the Nagar Palika upfront, but instead of that, the police rushed to register an FIR against the persons in charge of the maintenance of the bridge. The top officials of the company in charge of management are still absconding and the State Police is not interested in catching them. Only the low level officials of the Agenta-Oreva have been arrested so far.

"There has to be an investigation independent of the State. The State authorities are part of the cross-negligence. It is an act resulted in the death of 141 person, including 47 children. No action has been taken against govt officials, nagar palika officials. This undermines the entire investigation. There is also the looming shadow the elections on December 1. They are not catching the big fish, the people who are in the management of the Agenta-Oreva company"

"So you are highlighting three issues. Independent investigation. No arrest made of officials of the nagar palika. No arrest made of the officials in the top management of the Agenta company", CJI observed.

"What we are proposing to do, we can give liberty to your client to intervene in the High Court. We can flag the issues and let the HC take a specific call on those issues and your clients can also intervene in the HC proceeding", CJI added.

"My issue is that arrests and responsibilities should have been the first thing. If the (High) court hasn't considered on three occasions, I am not sure if they're inclined to", Sankaranarayanan observed. He also raised the issue of compensation by saying that an ad-hoc method is being followed to compensate victims.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat, submitted that the High Court has already taken note of the issue, and that the petitioner can raise the issues there.

"After going through the order by HC, one thing is clear that the court is going into minute details. I don't have any reason to not have trust in HC. I do not rule out the possibility of HC going into the prayers raised by petitioner", the SG said.

When the bench said that it will grant petitioner liberty to approach the High Court after flagging the issues raised by him, the SG intervened to state that the Court should not record the issues as well, as they are capable of being misunderstood.

"A word from your lordships is being capable of being misunderstood. I don't see any reason to not trust the HC. The HC will take it up if he goes there. HC is taking very very seriously. We also understand the tragedy", SG said.

In response, Gopal Sankaranarayanan said :  "We have no control over misunderstanding. That shouldn't be a reason to scare us into not saying what's right. You're doubting our credentials.."

Cases : Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 985/2022, Chavada Dilipbai vs State of Gujarat W.P.(Crl.) No. 448/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order