His 3 children drowned in unfenced tank 18 years ago. Now, J-K man granted Rs 2 lakh each as compensation

In his March 24 ruling, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that a 2-feet-high parapet wall “by no reasonable standard, can be regarded as an adequate safety measure to prevent access to a hazardous water reservoir”.

The court also asked the UT Chief Secretary to frame a comprehensive policy to ensure fencing, warning signboards and other safety measures around reservoirs, water bodies and hazardous installations.

“Such minimal protection, from any yardstick, is wholly insufficient and reflects lack of due care on the part of the respondents,” he said.

The tank contained deep water and had steep concrete slopes, making escape extremely difficult, the court noted, adding that such structures are inherently hazardous and require strict safety measures to prevent accidental access.

“This court also fails to understand the object behind the construction of a parapet wall of merely about two feet in height around a hazardous structure such as the forebay tank as it can be easily crossed or climbed over by any person, much less by children, who are unaware of the risks involved, the court observed.

“In the considered opinion of this court, if the respondents were genuinely conscious of the safety of the inhabitants, the reservoir ought to have been secured by a proper boundary wall or fencing of sufficient height and strength which could reasonably prevent ingress,” it observed, adding that failure to adopt such basic and necessary precautions “reflect a clear lack of due care on the part of the respondents in discharging their duty to safeguard human life”.

It also rejected the respondents’ submission that the deaths were caused by parental negligence, noting that when hazardous structures are located in publicly accessible areas, authorities must anticipate children approaching them.

“The respondents cannot, therefore, escape liability by shifting the blame onto the grieving parents,” it said, adding: “This court cannot shut its eyes to the larger ground reality that such incidents are not isolated, but reflect a recurring pattern of neglect in matters concerning public safety… Such failure constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the respondents and results in violation of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution”.