‘Accumulation of negligence’: Telangana HC slams regulatory agencies over Sigachi factory blast, appoints amicus curiae

“Have you found the complicity or criminal negligence of those statutory regulatory authorities who were supposed to inspect these factories from time to time and give reports?” the bench asked. When the investigating officer (IO) said the inspection was carried out last in December 2024, the bench sought to know the frequency of these inspections, recalling that more inflammable material than the permissible limits was stored at the factory at the time of the incident.

Listing out statutes and regulations that need compliance of a factory, the bench observed, “These incidents do not occur because of lapses overnight. It is an accumulation of negligence or culpable actions which lead to this.”

The court also asked whether those regulatory agencies concerned have been examined. “This is an isolated incident but it may happen anywhere in the state. It keeps on happening.”

The bench also underscored the problem of implementation and enforcement while noting that statutes and regulations are well in place. “If you expect a court-monitored investigation, we will ask the right questions and elicit the answers from the investigating agency but that is not our primary job,” the bench observed, as it underlined that those whose culpable omissions or criminal negligence caused the incident are given a leeway.

Potential pressure on investigators

The bench also sought to know if the investigators were under any “pressures or difficulties” and if so, the court could insulate their functioning and ask a superior officer to get the investigation done.

When Additional Advocate General T Rajinikanth Reddy informed the court that the expert committee had fixed the responsibility on the officer of the factories department who inspected the factory in December 2024, the bench asked, “Only one officer? What about other agencies we are talking about?” The bench, expressing displeasure with the answers, granted two weeks to the respondents to “come fully prepared with answers”.

The court directed an investigation to progress against those whom the agency felt were “actively responsible” or “whose negligence is culpable in nature”.

Sigachi Industries, which is respondent 10, was granted further time to file a counter affidavit with details of compensation already paid to the kin of the victims and the amounts proposed to be paid to the families of the dead, missing, or injured victims.

The matter was posted for further hearing on December 30. The court also directed, upon request from the PIL petitioner’s counsel, Vasudha Nagaraj, the state to furnish details of the FIR concerning the eight people who went missing on the day of the accident and are presumed dead.