The Supreme Court of India on Monday allowed the victims of the Morbi bridge collapse to file a fresh petition seeking a reinvestigation into the incident. The collapse of the ‘Jhulto Pul’ in Morbi in October 2022 claimed 135 lives and reportedly raised questions about accountability and the adequacy of the investigation conducted so far.
This development came as the apex court disposed of two special leave petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against judgments or orders from lower courts or tribunals. The petitions challenged a Gujarat High Court decision that refused to quash the chargesheet in the case and declined to order a fresh probe.
In its decision, the Supreme Court directed the victims to file their petition under Article 32, which guarantees the right to approach the top court to enforce fundamental rights, instead of Article 136. The court noted that this would provide the victims with a broader platform to present their grievances.
One of the petitions disposed of by the Supreme Court was filed by Dilipbhai Chavda, who lost his brother and sister-in-law in the collapse. The other was submitted by the Tragedy Victim Association, an organisation representing those affected by the disaster.
The case has its roots in an application filed in October 2024 by a victim seeking to quash the chargesheet and the ongoing investigation. This application, filed as part of a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated by the Gujarat High Court following the collapse, also requested a fresh investigation by another agency, preferably the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
However, a division bench of the High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, dismissed the application, stating that the PIL was primarily focused on the rehabilitation of the victims.
The High Court observed, “This court in the present PIL cannot enter into the correctness of the investigation and the prayer for quashing of the chargesheet, which are wholly misconceived prayers, cannot be granted.”
The victims have pointed out that the investigation so far has failed to hold the district collector accountable for the lapses that led to the bridge collapse. The High Court’s reasoning in dismissing their application included the assertion that the ongoing PIL could not address the specifics of the investigation or chargesheet.
While granting the victims the liberty to file a fresh plea, the Supreme Court clarified that the observations and reasoning in the Gujarat High Court’s judgment would not influence the new proceedings. The apex court stated, “The said proceedings will have to be decided independently on their own merits.”
Also Read: Indian Economy in a State of Cyclical Slowdown: Report
