The Gujarat High Court recognized that a single compensation payout wouldn't suffice for the families affected by the Morbi suspension bridge collapse. In response, they directed the Oreva Group, responsible for the bridge's maintenance, to offer lifelong pensions to the elderly who lost their sons and provide jobs or stipends to the widows impacted by this tragic event.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunil Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee, presided over a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the tragic incident on October 30, 2022, where 135 individuals lost their lives due to the collapse of a British-era suspension bridge.

According to the government, ten women were widowed and seven children were orphaned.

"Give jobs to widows, or stipend if they do not want to do jobs. You have to support them throughout their life. You have completely upturned their lives. They may not be in a position to work. There are women who have never worked and never gone out of their homes. How can you expect them to come out of their homes and go to work somewhere?" Chief Justice Agarwal told the firm.

Even though the company asserted its efforts in supporting the orphans and widows, the High Court inquired about the measures being taken for the elderly men who lost their sole support, their young sons, and were reliant on them for their livelihoods.

"One-time compensation is not going to help you. Please keep it in mind. This is a scar for life. One-time compensation may not be in a position to help them... There has to be some recurring expenditure by the company," it said.

The High Court bench further noted the necessity of establishing a trust for the distribution of compensation to those affected, acknowledging the potential challenges in the court's long-term oversight of the process. Additionally, the court directed the government to propose viable solutions aimed at addressing the needs of the families affected by the tragedy.

"After going through the SIT report, can you argue what you are arguing? It was your act, you were the company, you replaced the wooden plank with aluminium. After the SIT report, you are not allowed to speak at all. You cannot argue you are the sufferer. You cannot place your problems before us," the court said.

The government updated the court on the status of 1,900 significant bridges across the state, specifying that 384 are within municipal corporation areas and 113 are situated in municipalities. In response, the Chief Justice proposed a strategy involving the collaboration of conservation architects to restore aging bridges possessing historical significance, highlighting the importance of preserving these structures.

Giving a contract to repair an old bridge to someone incompetent could result in a Morbi-like disaster, the court pointed out.