The Supreme Court today directed the Madhya Pradesh authorities to present material evidence addressing concerns raised by a litigant regarding the disposal of chemical waste from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy site at Pithampur.

The court also sought clarification on whether adequate measures have been taken to mitigate potential risks to residents in the surrounding areas.

The Supreme Court stated that it would not intervene unless the apprehensions raised were found to be genuine. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, which is hearing a plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s directive to transport and dispose of 337 metric tons of "hazardous" chemical waste from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy site to Pithampur.  

During the mentioning, the counsel informed the Court that after issuing notice on February 17, the MP High Court, on February 18, ordered a trial run of 10 metric tons starting from February 27. In light of this, he requested that the Supreme Court take up the matter on February 27 and, in the meantime, pass an interim order.

The bench directed the counsel to notify the Madhya Pradesh Standing Counsel and scheduled the matter as the first item for hearing on February 27. When a counsel appeared on behalf of the state, Justice BR Gavai asked him to obtain instructions.

"He (petitioner) says it is going to cause hazards to the citizens...we are not going to stop it unless the apprehension is found to be well-founded. You go through the petition and find out if the concern shown by them is with or without substance. And if there is some substance, as to what steps you are taking...", said the judge.

When the MP counsel sought 2 days' time to file counter-affidavit, Justice Gavai said that the state should then hold its hands insofar as the trial run of February 27 is concerned. "Suppose something happens on 27th itself...it should not be a fait accompli...or you satisfy us on 27th itself and tell us that you have taken all the precautions and nothing is likely to happen...if you satisfy us that you have taken ample care and there is no danger, [we] wont come in the way. You have to come with some material in support of that."

Notably, the bench also observed orally that the Madhya Pradesh High Court should have refrained from passing the February 18 order while the Supreme Court was already seized of the matter.

Case Title: CHINMAY MISHRA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 3661-2025