Morbi bridge tragedy & liability of State

Pushpa Girimaji

The horrific collapse of the suspension bridge over Machchhu river in Morbi, Gujarat, brings back painful memories of many other similar avoidable, man-made disasters in the country, caused by callous negligence. Ironically, just days before its reopening, Jaysukhbhai Patel, managing director of Oreva Group (Ajanta Manufacturing Pvt Ltd), which had been given the contract to repair and maintain the bridge, had told a press conference that the repairs would hold up for at least eight to 10 years. They did not even last eight days.

The inspection, evaluation, rehabilitation and maintenance of old suspension bridges is an extremely complex and specialised work, particularly when it comes to the main load carrying part — the cables. The wires can crack on account of active and stress corrosion. This iconic 143-year-old, 233-metre-long, cable-supported structure required those with expertise in the field to restore it and ensure its safety.

As per preliminary investigations, the floor of the bridge was replaced, thereby increasing its weight. But the old, corroded cables were neither changed, nor reinforced.

On the day of the accident, there were about 250 persons on the bridge. Public safety was compromised at every stage. How can the government allow a private entity to inaugurate and reopen a public bridge?

Yes, Oreva was at fault, but the public authority is equally accountable. The government had a bigger responsibility — to entrust the work to experts. Given the age of the bridge, it was also required to get an independent safety audit done after completion of the repairs, determine its load-bearing capacity and ensure proper crowd control. Failing to do all this is a violation of the fundamental rights of citizens.

Besides the criminal prosecution, the compensation amount determined by the court needs to be paid by not just Oreva, but also the government functionaries who failed to ensure the safety of the bridge.

The Supreme Court has constantly spoken of having a comprehensive legislation to deal with the tortious liability of the State and its instrumentalities.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011), the Supreme Court referred to this: “We hope and trust that utmost attention would be given by the legislature for bringing in appropriate legislation to deal with claims in public law for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens, at the hands of the State and its officials.”

Subsequently, in 2014, in Vadodara Municipal Corporation Vs Purshottam Murjani, it again referred to the need for such a law. In August last year, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Union government, in response to a writ petition, to consider introducing a Bill on the tortious liability of the State within six months (K Pushpavanam Vs Union of India).

Lastly, in tragedies such as these, the criminal cases as well as civil cases filed by the families of the victims for compensation drag on for years, pushing many families who have lost earning members into deep economic distress.

The delays in the justice system actually punish the victims rather than the perpetrators. There must be separate fast-track courts exclusively to deal with such large man-made disasters so that there is a quick closure to the case and justice is delivered.

— The writer is a consumer rights expert