Supreme Court allows Morbi bridge collapse victim to approach again with fresh plea seeking reinvestigation

The apex court allowed the victims to file a fresh petition under Article 32 (guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights) instead of Article 136 (gives the SC the power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or order passed by any court or tribunal).On October 17, 2024, a division bench of the Gujarat HC comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, had dismissed an application by a victim of Morbi bridge collapse, seeking quashing of the chargesheet and investigation so far and direct for a fresh probe by another agency, preferably CBI.

The victims have highlighted that the present investigation has not held the district collector responsible for the lapses — on his part — that led to the bridge collapse.

The application was filed in a 2022 PIL the Gujarat HC had instituted suo motu subsequent to the bridge collapse.

While dismissing the application, the HC had recorded that the PIL is “concerned with the rehabilitation of the victims and orders have been passed in this direction”. The HC had further stated, “This court in the present PIL cannot enter into the correctness of the investigation and the prayer for quashing of the chargesheet, which are wholly misconceived prayers, cannot be granted.”

Two special leave petitions were filed under Article 136 by Dilipbhai Chavda, who lost his brother and sister-in-law in the collapse, and another by an association representing the victims — Tragedy Victim Association — appealing against the Gujarat HC’s dismissal order.

Granting the victims a wider scope to canvas their grievance and request for a fresh investigation, where the “observations made and the reasoning given in the impugned judgment (of the Gujarat HC) will not have any bearing and, therefore, the said proceedings will have to be decided independently on their own merits,” the court said.