Taking note of the fact that the Gujarat High Court had already taken suo motu cognizance of the Morbi bridge collapse, which occurred on October 30 and killed 141 people, the Supreme Court refused to hear two petitions seeking an independent investigation into the tragedy on Monday. The Court did, however, grant the petitioners the right to approach the High Court to raise their concerns, either through an independent writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or by intervening in the suo motu case.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli directed that the Gujarat High Court, which is currently hearing a suo motu case on the subject, hold periodic hearings on the matter.

"It is an enormous tragedy and this will require a weekly monitoring to see award of contract, credential of party awarded the contract, attribution of responsibility for those guilty. High Court has taken charge else we would have issued notice," the bench orally remarked.

The bench also noted some issues raised by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who represented Chavada Dilipbhai, including:

·         the need for an independent investigation into acts/omissions that would amount to criminal wrongdoing;

·         the need to assign blame to Nagar Palika officials; and

·         the need to ensure that the agency entrusted with the task of maintaining the bridge and its management are held accountable, including but not limited to

The bench led by the CJI noted that the High Court is monitoring various aspects of the matter almost weekly and that several aspects would necessitate obtaining periodic responses from State and Nagar Palika officials. It went on to say that the High Court "would undoubtedly be concerned with ensuring a regulatory mechanism to ensure that such incidents do not reoccur."

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.

At last CJI DY Chandrachud added "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.

Cases Title: Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India, Chavada Dilipbai vs State of Gujarat

Citaton: W.P.(C) No. 985/2022, W.P.(Crl.) No. 448/2022