Morbi Tragedy| 'It Wasn't An Act Of God; You Played With Public Property': Gujarat HC Presses 'Oreva' For Comprehensive Victims' Rehabilitation Plan

Following the issuance of a contempt notice against Jaysukh Patel, director of Oreva company, for non-compliance with court orders and causing delays, the company has issued an apology, which the Gujarat High Court has accepted today and decided not to pursue contempt proceedings against the managing director, for the 'time being'

However, the division bench, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Anirudhha Mayee, expressed dissatisfaction with the company's lack of proposals regarding rehabilitating the victims.

During the suo moto hearing on the Morbi bridge collapse, Chief Justice Agarwal expressed acceptance of the apology affidavit while emphasizing, “We are accepting this affidavit of apology, but with the expectation that you will come out with a real proposal and whatever you said, you implement it but we are not satisfied with it. However, the offer in the further affidavit dated 24.04.2024, though is in line with the observation made in the order dated 19.04.2024, however, it cannot be accepted as a complete and comprehensive proposal for rehabilitation of the victims of Morbi Bridge Collapse.”

The Court has scheduled the next hearing for June 19, 2024, “with the hope and trust that the Respondent no. 7 company will come out with a concrete, comprehensive proposal for rehabilitation of the victims of the unfortunate incident so that they can sustain and lead their life in a dignified manner.”

During the hearing on April 26, Unawalla, representing the Oreva group, informed the Court that they had submitted two affidavits. One apologised for not filing the reply within the directed time, and the other addressed the discrepancy regarding the compensation amount to the victims. Unawalla stated that Oreva has agreed to provide Rs 12,000 monthly financial aid for the victims of the bridge collapse tragedy and is in alignment with the State government on this matter.

The Chief Justice, addressing Unwalla, emphasized the company's corporate social responsibility (CSR) and remarked, “In your responsibility as CSR, when you are guilty of something which is not pardonable, then you have to do something extra … Your remorse would come only when you would do something extra. This was not an ordinary incident. This was not an act of God. This was not something where it can be said that despite all your best efforts, this has happened. You are a company, you took contract. You entered into a contract with Nagar Palika. You being a responsible person of the place called Morbi, Nagar Palika though had committed many administrative lapses, but at least this can be looked into that some sense of responsibility was put in a company like you that if you're taking the contract then you will do your best.”

The CJ stressed that Oreva cannot be absolved of fault in any aspect of the incident, and emphasized that the gravity of the situation demands more than just remorse from Oreva. “This situation calls for something more on your part. You played with a public bridge, you simply played with public property.,” the CJ highlighted.

The Chief Justice then asked, “have you ever thought sitting in your chamber as to what would happen to those people who are disabled, dependent upon others not for any fault of theirs? Have you ever thought that if you put yourself in a condition of a disabled person and if you do not have money, how can you survive in society? Like coming out of bed, going to loo, eating proper food, sleeping on the bed becomes a struggle?”

“There is a family. Then there are children. Now a chart is given to us (showing) mother is surviving, children are living with uncle and his family. You cannot say you will not support them because there is family. So you have double responsibility. One responsibility is about repentance for your guilt which you and you are solely responsible. No one on earth is responsible. And you're not an innocent person. You should have done what you have not done at all. And then second is about your CSR responsibility. Both have to be considered. Both have to be applied in this matter,” she added.

The counsel assured the court they would discuss its suggestions with their client, especially in the PIL jurisdiction, and revert to the court.

In response, the Chief Justice stated, “This game you're playing of hide and seek and then waiting and watching as to what is coming from the other side, this should stop. We asked you to give your offer on many aspects. Many things we don't write in the order. For PIL we're not supposed to write everything in an order, we convey something through the counsel. This is how we expect you to come forward like a social, responsible person.”

Moving ahead, the Chief Justice emphasized the plight of one of the young female victims who became 40% disabled in the Morbi tragedy, stating, “do you understand a 23-24 year old girl became disabled. Now she may or may not get any support in her life. Here in India, Marriage is also a taboo for these persons. We never look at a disabled person like a normal person. And since we're born normal, we think we're supreme. And if in public spaces, disabled persons are moving, then we even look at them with either pity or with the idea ki inko toh yahan aana hi nahi chaiye tha, why they have come here. They are supposed to sit at home. So for a girl when we gave that offer to you, whatever that offer was, this was the idea in mind that she should have that independence that she should never be required to look to anyone for her life at least.”

Unawalla once again assured the court that the company would offer more than standard compensation and promised to present a solid plan by the next hearing date.

Criticizing the company's lack of proactive suggestions for compensating the victims,the court suggested creating a support system tailored to the victims' needs, potentially involving traditional crafts and leveraging organizations like SEWA to empower them economically.

“You can change the face of the society if you want and that should be your repentance. After few years people would think that the Morbi is not the same place as it was at the time of the Morbi bridge collapse. You have no limitations,” the CJ added.