SC wants monitoring of Morbi bridge case

NEW DELHI: Calling the Morbi suspension bridge collapse an “enormous tragedy”, the Supreme Court on Monday asked the Gujarat high court to examine the case periodically to ensure that the investigation fixes accountability of those guilty of criminal negligence and to offer adequate compensation to the next of kin of victims.

The apex court also asked the high court to examine putting in place a regulatory mechanism to ensure incidents such as the bridge collapse in Gujarat do not recur in the future.

Taking up two separate writ petitions on the issue, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud observed that the top court would have examined the matter itself in the wake of the “glaring facts” had the high court not initiated proceedings on its own (suo motu) on November 7 and passed three orders since then.

Days after it was reopened following renovation, the suspension bridge on Machchu river in Gujarat’s Morbi town collapsed on October 30, killing 135 people. The petitions filed in the Supreme Court, however, pegged the death toll at 141.

“It’s an enormous tragedy and there’s no doubt about it. This will require a weekly hearing to examine various aspects such as the status of investigation, the manner in which the contract was awarded, attribution of responsibility and the award of contract to the company concerned, the grant of compensation and the need for an independent investigation. But for the fact that the high court has already taken charge, we would have taken it ourselves and looked into this,” remarked the bench, which also included justice Hima Kohli. The bench said that a periodic intervention by a judicial forum is warranted in the facts of the case to ascertain whether the investigation requires to be conducted by a team independent of state police officials, besides scrutinising the action taken or being contemplated against the officials of the Morbi municipality and Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd, which was awarded the contract to maintain and operate the British-era suspension bridge.

“This is a matter that requires weekly intervention which we are not sure the Supreme Court should do at the first instance when the HC has already been looking into this and it has also passed three orders... Why we should distrust the HC, especially when the chief justice has moved with an alacrity,” observed the court. In its order, the court took note of the concerns raised by the petitioners, one of whom is a person who lost his brother and sister-in-law in the tragic incident. These included the need for an independent probe on acts or omissions which would amount to criminal wrongdoing; the need to fix responsibility against officials of Morbi municipality; 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 the investigation; reasonable compensation to the heirs of those who have lost lives in the tragedy.

“We are of the view that the HC 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 bench said, suggesting the HC to pay due attention to these concerns.

The order added: “Several aspects of the matter will require obtaining periodical reports from the state and nagar palika (municipality) on incidents leading up to the collapse of the bridge and subsequent events of relief, rehabilitation and compensation. The court will also need to examine the aspect of a regulatory mechanism so that such incidents don’t recur.” The court requested the HC to take up the suo motu issue on a periodical basis “so that the purpose underlined in the order are duly fulfilled”, as it gave the petitioners the liberty to approach the HC to get an audience.

On November 7, the Gujarat HC took suo motu cognisance of the matter, and heard it on November 15 and 16, when the Morbi municipality was pulled up for permitting Ajanta to keep the bridge open for the public between December 29, 2021 and March 7, 2022, despite knowing that it was in a critical condition. Adjourning the matter to November 24, the HC directed the municipality to bring on record all documents relating to the award of contract and approval to Ajanta.

The SC was on Monday hearing two petitions. The first was filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari as a PIL, seeking a judicial commission under the supervision of a retired SC judge to initiate a probe into the bridge collapse. Tiwari also sought directions to all states for setting up committees to conduct assessment of the risk of old monuments and bridges to ensure environmental viability and safety. The second petition was filed by Chavada Dilipbhai, who lost his brother and sister-in-law in the bridge collapse incident, asking for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and enhanced compensation for the next of kin of the deceased.

On Monday, the bench took up both the petitions together. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Dilipbhai, argued that much was lacking in the matter as he pressed the need for an independent probe and arrest of the officials of Morbi municipality and Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd — operating under the banner of Oreva group. “And then, there is the looming shadow of election in the state which is due in the first week of December. It’s ideal to have an independent investigation; since if you are not able to catch the big fish, there would be no trust in the probe,” he said. However, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said required steps are being taken and that any word from the SC when the HC is already monitoring the matter could be misinterpreted.

“The additional issues being flagged by the petitioner here can very well be raised before the high court... Anything said here may create a sense of doubt... any order being passed by this court may have its own repercussions,” said the SG. At this, the bench proceeded to highlight the concerns raised by Sankaranarayanan in its order, requesting the HC to examine them. Tiwari submitted that he has sought a judicial commission to supervise the probe, besides demanding a directive to all states to set up a mechanism for auditing old and dangerous public structures. The SC responded: “We have also said in our order that there should be a regulatory mechanism to see such incidents do not recur. Sometimes, it’s good for the judges to hear them. Commission may not be proper in all case. Let the HC evolve a mechanism. Someday, we may have to issue instructions for the whole country.”