Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, dealing with a lawyer’s plea over the recent water crisis in Indore, on Tuesday (January 27) ordered the constitution of a one-member Judicial Commission headed by retired Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta to examine alleged contamination of the drinking-water supply in Bhagirathpura and its spillover impact on other parts of the city. The Court directed State and local authorities to fully assist the Commission, provide required infrastructure and records, and submit an interim report within four weeks. It also ordered daily water-quality tests and continued medical camps in affected areas.

The batch of writ petitions were instituted before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore raising grievances concerning alleged contamination of drinking water in Bhagirathpura (Ward No.11) and other areas of Indore city. The petitions were filed both in public interest and in individual capacity. The petitioners alleged negligence, mismanagement, and failure of civic authorities, particularly the Indore Municipal Corporation and State authorities, resulting in health hazards and casualties.

Also Read: Excess Payment Of Land Acquisition Compensation To A Few Landowners Doesn’t Invalidate Others’ Compensation; Supreme Court

Interlocutory applications were filed seeking permission to place documents and progress reports on record, which were allowed. An application for impleadment of the Indore Municipal Corporation and the Collector, Indore, was also allowed. Compliance reports were filed by the State Government and the Indore Municipal Corporation pursuant to earlier interim directions. The petitioners disputed these reports and relied upon media publications, pleadings, and intervention applications.

The State placed on record a death audit and analytical report prepared by a committee of medical professionals. The report attributed 16 deaths to water contamination, while categorising other deaths as inconclusive. The petitioners contested the methodology and basis of this report, particularly the reliance on “verbal autopsy.” The dispute centered on the cause of contamination, number of deaths, adequacy of response, and accountability of officials, invoking the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court recorded that “all these writ petitions by way of Public Interest Litigation or individual capacity relate to the water contamination tragedy of Bhagirathpura (Ward No.11 of Indore Municipal Corporation) and also to the other areas of Indore town.”

It observed that “‘Right to life’ includes ‘Right to clean drinking water’” and that the issues raised “fell within the ambit of public health emergency which is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

While noting the filing of compliance reports, the Court recorded that “per contra, learned counsel for petitioners seriously disputed the aforesaid interim reports submitted by the State government and Indore Municipal Corporation.” The Court noted the submission that directions relating to supply of safe drinking water, free treatment, and testing “is not being complied with.”

With respect to the High-Level Committee, the Court recorded the petitioners’ contention that “the appointment of the so-called High Power Committee is nothing but an eyewash.”

On the death audit, the Court observed that “we asked the State what a ‘verbal autopsy’ is, but they could not explain what is a ‘verbal autopsy’ and further, they could not show any material before us for the death audit and analytical report.”

The Court further recorded that “according to the petitioners and media reports death toll is about 30 till today, but the report depicts only 16 without any basis or record.”

It observed that “photographs, medical reports, and complaints submitted to the authorities prima facie indicate a matter requiring urgent judicial scrutiny.”

Considering the overall circumstances, the Court stated that “considering the gravity of the allegation and affecting the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the need for an independent fact-finding exercise, the Court is of the opinion that the matter requires investigation by an independent, credible authority.”

The Court directed that “Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta, Former Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court, [is appointed] a one-man commission of inquiry into the issues relating to water contamination in Bhagirathpura, Indore, and its impact on other areas of the city.”

The Commission shall inquire into “whether the drinking water supplied to Bhagirathpura was contaminated” and “the source and nature of contamination (sewage ingress, industrial discharge, pipeline damage etc.).”

The Commission was directed to inquire into “the number of actual deaths of affected residents on account of contaminated water,” “the nature of disease reported,” and “the adequacy of medical response and preventive measures.”

The Commission to examine “immediate steps required to ensure safe drinking water,” “long-term infrastructural and monitoring reforms,” and “to identify and fix responsibility upon the officers and officials found prima facie responsible for the Bhagirathpura water contamination incident and suggest guidelines for compensation to affected residents, particularly vulnerable sections.

The Court conferred upon the Commission “powers of a Civil Court” for the purposes of “summoning officials and witnesses,” “calling up records from the Government department, hospitals, laboratories and civic bodies,” “ordering water quality testing through accredited laboratories,” and “conducting spot inspections.”

Also Read: Candidates Must Monitor Official Recruitment Website For Recruitment Updates; MP High Court Refuses To Relax Recruitment Document Verification Timelines On Medical Grounds

“All State authorities involving district administration, Indore Municipal Corporation, Public Health Engineering department and Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board shall extend full co-operation and provide records as sought by the Commission. The State Government shall provide office space, staff, and logistical support to the Commission.”

“The Commission shall submit an interim report after four weeks from the date of commencement of proceedings.”

“The respondents are directed to ensure compliance with the following directions in addition to the earlier interim directions contained in para 8 of the order dated 6.1.2026:- Daily water quality testing, Medical camps to be conducted by the health department.”

The matters be “listed after four weeks on 05.03.2026.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri Ajay Bagadia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Saily Purandare; Shri Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate; Shri Manish Yadav, Advocate; Shri M.S. Chandel, Advocate; Shri Ritesh Inani, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Shri Rahul Sethi, Learned AAG; Shri Ashish Yadav, Learned AAG; Shri Sudeep Bhargava, Deputy Advocate General; Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, Deputy Advocate General; Shri Kushagra Singh, Deputy Advocate General; Shri Aditya Garg, Government Advocate; Shri Rishi Tiwari, Advocate; Shri Kapil Duggal, Advocate.

Case Title: Prabhat Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number: WP No.247 of 2026 (with connected matters)
Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Justice Alok Awasthi