DATE: 27/01/2026
COURT: High Court of
Madhya Pradesh
BENCH: Justice Vijay
Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi
FACTS:
The present batch of writ petitions, filed
both as Public Interest Litigations and in individual capacities, concerns a
grave incident of drinking water contamination in Bhagirathpura (Ward No. 11)
of Indore Municipal Corporation, with allegations that contamination has also
affected other areas of Indore city. The petitioners alleged gross negligence,
mismanagement, corruption, and a lackadaisical attitude on the part of civic
and State authorities, resulting in the outbreak of water-borne diseases and multiple
fatalities, particularly affecting vulnerable sections such as children and
elderly residents. The incident was asserted to be a public health emergency
implicating the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, which includes the right to access clean and safe drinking water.
Earlier, the Court had passed interim
directions on 06.01.2026 mandating immediate supply of safe drinking water,
medical camps, free treatment, water quality testing by NABL-accredited
laboratories, repair of pipelines, chlorination, and long-term water safety
planning. In compliance, the State Government and Indore Municipal Corporation
submitted reports claiming adherence to the directions and constitution of a
High-Level Committee to inquire into the incident. However, the petitioners
disputed these reports, relying on media coverage and residents’ affidavits,
and contended that compliance was illusory, the inquiry was an eyewash, and
records were being manipulated. Serious controversy arose regarding the actual
death toll, with petitioners claiming approximately 30 deaths, while a
State-constituted committee reported only 16 deaths conclusively attributable
to water contamination, based partly on “verbal autopsy,” the basis of which
the State failed to satisfactorily explain or substantiate before the Court.
ISSUES:
The principal issues before the Court were
whether the drinking water supplied to Bhagirathpura was contaminated and, if
so, the source and nature of such contamination; whether the State and
municipal authorities failed in their constitutional and statutory duties to
ensure safe drinking water and adequate medical response; the actual number of
deaths and illnesses attributable to the contamination; the adequacy and
credibility of the inquiry conducted by the State; and whether an independent
investigation was necessary to safeguard public health, ensure accountability
of responsible officials, and protect the fundamental right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution.
JUDGEMENT WITH
REASONING:
The Court held that, considering the
seriousness of the allegations, inconsistencies in the State’s reports, lack of
supporting material for the death audit, and the fundamental importance of
clean drinking water to the right to life under Article 21, the matter required
investigation by an independent and credible authority. Accordingly, the Court
appointed Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta, Former Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court, as a one-man Commission of Inquiry to investigate the causes, impact,
accountability, and remedial measures relating to the Bhagirathpura water
contamination incident, with specific terms of reference and powers akin to a
civil court, while reiterating and strengthening earlier interim directions.
The Court’s reasoning was anchored in the
constitutional principle that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses
the right to clean and safe drinking water. The Court noted that the incident
was not an isolated civic lapse but a matter of public health emergency with city-wide
and potentially State-wide ramifications. While the State and Indore Municipal
Corporation claimed compliance with earlier interim directions, the Court found
that these assertions were seriously contested by the petitioners through media
reports, residents’ interventions, and ground-level accounts indicating
continued supply failures, inadequate medical facilities, and lack of
transparency. Of particular concern was the State’s death audit and analytical
report, which attributed only 16 out of 23 deaths conclusively to water
contamination without producing any underlying records, case sheets, or
credible scientific basis, and relied on “verbal autopsy,” a concept the State
itself could not adequately explain or justify before the Court.
The Court further reasoned that the
constitution of an internal High-Level Committee by the State did not inspire
confidence, especially in light of allegations that such inquiries tend to
shield erring officers and allow destruction or tampering of records. The apparent
inconsistency in categorising deaths as “conclusive” or “inconclusive” despite
identical remarks, coupled with the absence of primary medical and laboratory
evidence, underscored the necessity of an independent fact-finding mechanism.
Given the gravity of the alleged loss of life, systemic civic failures, and the
continuing threat to public health, the Court concluded that only an
independent judicially supervised inquiry, vested with powers to summon
officials, call records, conduct inspections, and order scientific testing,
could ensure accountability, transparency, and restoration of public
confidence, while also guiding corrective measures and compensation for
victims.
ANALYSIS:
This decision represents a significant
reaffirmation of the constitutional obligation of the State to protect public
health as an integral component of the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The High Court recognized that access to clean and safe drinking
water is not merely a statutory duty of municipal authorities but a fundamental
human right whose violation can have catastrophic consequences. Rather than
accepting the State's compliance reports at face value, the Court adopted a
rights-based and evidence-oriented approach by scrutinizing inconsistencies in
the official records, particularly the unexplained reliance on "verbal
autopsy" and the absence of supporting medical and scientific evidence. By
emphasizing transparency, accountability, and scientific verification, the
Court reinforced the principle that governmental authorities cannot evade
constitutional responsibility through incomplete or unsubstantiated
administrative inquiries, especially where public health emergencies and loss
of human life are involved.
The appointment of a retired High Court Judge
as an independent one-man Commission of Inquiry reflects the Court's commitment
to ensuring institutional accountability and restoring public confidence in
governance. The judgment acknowledges that internal departmental inquiries may
lack credibility where allegations of negligence, corruption, or record
manipulation are directed against the very authorities conducting the
investigation. By vesting the Commission with powers similar to those of a
civil court and directing it to examine the causes of contamination, determine
official responsibility, recommend compensation, and propose preventive
measures, the Court adopted a proactive form of judicial oversight without
substituting itself for the executive. The ruling therefore serves as an
important precedent in environmental and public health jurisprudence by
demonstrating that judicial intervention under Article 226 can extend beyond
immediate relief to establishing mechanisms that ensure truth-finding,
accountability, and long-term protection of citizens' fundamental rights.
info@adhwaitha.com