Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of a tragic incident of drowning of two young children aged 4 and 5 in a civic garden, highlighting serious concerns regarding civic responsibility and the value placed on human life.

The court, presided over by, Justice Kamal Khata and Justice G S Patel, has initiated the suo moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based on newspaper reports that highlighted the incident that occurred at a civic garden in Wadala, where the children, innocently playing, met a tragic fate. The water tank in the garden, which should have been securely covered, was found to be only covered with paper. This inadequate safety measure led to the children drowning, sparking outrage and calls for accountability.

Upon investigation, it was revealed that despite repeated complaints from residents, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) failed to address the safety hazard. The court pointed to a newspaper report which highlighted that “the Wadala Citizens Forum had complained repeatedly to the civic body about the condition of the tank and that it posed a danger.”

The BMC, according to reports, cited budgetary constraints as the reason for not providing a proper cover for the water tank. This response has raised serious questions about the priorities of civic authorities and their commitment to ensuring public safety.

In response to the incident, the High Court has raised significant concerns. The court asked, “What is the price of a human life in this city? Are the so called “budgetary constraints” of the BMC an answer for a failure to provide minimal safety precaution during civic works?”,  questioning whether budgetary constraints can justify neglecting basic safety precautions during civic projects and emphasises the need for accountability at both individual and institutional levels within the BMC.

Moreover, the court highlighted the BMC's lack of a compensation mechanism for victims in such cases, highlighting the stark contrast with the BMC’s lack thereof. It noted that both the Railways and the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport undertaking have established policies and frameworks for compensating victims of accidents or deaths. Additionally, they have dedicated tribunals to handle such cases. The court expressing disbelief, stated, “It seems to us inconceivable that a Municipal Corporation could have no responsibility or liability at all if it is demonstrated that an accident or a death has been caused due to negligence on the part of the Corporation concerned.”

Senior Advocate Mr. Sharan Jagtiani and Advocate Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar have been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in navigating the complex legal issues surrounding the case.

The court has directed that notice will primarily be served to the BMC, given its direct involvement in the case. However, the court has opted not to extend notices to every other Municipal Corporation or local body in Maharashtra at this stage, despite the broader legal implications raised by the case.Instead, the court intends to issue notice to the learned Advocate General and seek their assistance in addressing the complexities that may arise.

The court further noted that following the formal registration of the PIL, it will be brought before the Honourable Chief Justice for further directives and assignment of responsibilities.

 

Cause Title: High Court in its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra & Others [Suo Moto PIL (L) NO. 11654 OF 2024]