On Monday, the Gujarat High Court issued a directive in the Vadodara boat capsize tragedy stating that it will request a personal affidavit from the Commissioner of Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) regarding the incident at Harni lake, which resulted in the tragic deaths of 12 students and two teachers from a school earlier this month.

The court had previously taken suo motu cognizance of the incident on January 19th, instructing the state government to provide a report on the matter.

The suo moto PIL was listed before the division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, who stated “unless and until this kind of incident occurs, everybody feels that this will never happen. This is how we always live in denial mode”, thinking this will never happen.

The bench while questioning the VMC's role in the incident issued a notice to the VMC Commissioner and ordered him to file an affidavit describing what actions were taken by the civic body prior to the incident.

The Chief Justice remarked,“This was the contractor that was engaged by the corporation, so what is the duty of the corporation? They give contracts to private persons and then sleep? Whether they supervise if they are following norms, any instructions as to how they will manage?

“These are water bodies which are supposed to be managed by the corporations. If the corporation uses these water bodies for amusement, they can do it, no issues about that. But if they are giving these water bodies to some private persons, there has to be some instructions, accountability and supervision. So where is that? After the incident they woke up,” she added.

Advocate Gurusharan Virk appearing on behalf of the VMC informed the bench that the civic body took some action, to which the CJ replied, "You (VMC) may have taken a hundred corrective measures (after the incident), but that is not enough. We want to know how you were operating prior to the incident. And whether anybody is accountable in the corporation or not. Or only the contractor is to be slashed?"

The court was further informed that the civic body had previously issued instructions to the private contractor managing the lake on two accounts before the tragedy took place, to which the court sought to know why the contractor was allowed to operate even after failing to follow instructions.

"This is only an eyewash on the corporation's part. We'll be calling the affidavit of the corporation also. The municipal commissioner is answerable for that as this is within the jurisdiction of the VMC," CJ Agarwal said.

The Court asserted that the civic body cannot be expected to give away any public utility on contract and then sleep and not supervise the private entities engaged to look after the services.

The Court questioned if the civic bodies are checking if the private contractors are following the norms or not.

"These water bodies are to be looked after by the corporation. We aren't against the use of such bodies for amusement but the civic bodies need to keep a check," the court further said after Advocate General Kamal Trivedi submitted an affidavit stating how the incident had taken place.

The initial contract between the contractor and the VMC was signed in 2017, Trivedi informed the bench.

CJ Agarwal expressed concerns about the condition of other water bodies in the state that are utilized for recreational purposes. She highlighted her recent experiences, recounting two boat rides at Nal Sarovar bird sanctuary, a wetland near Sanand in Ahmedabad.

"I have gone there twice this season. After this (Vadodara) incident I realized we went without life jackets. They took the Chief Justice also without a life jacket. I could have drowned in the lake," she pointed out.

The court called for the development of a comprehensive government policy that applies to all water bodies in the state used for recreational purposes.

Chief Justice Agarwal emphasized the importance of accountability as the primary component in formulating the policy. She asserted that while contractors play a role, ultimate responsibility lies with the officers of the corporation.

Trivedi informed the court that the government has issued directives to local authorities in the aftermath of the Vadodara tragedy, outlining specific actions they must take regarding water bodies. Concurrently, all recreational activities at water bodies have been halted.

The court sought clarification on the applicability of safety regulations to lakes in forested areas, such as Nal Sarovar Lake, where people are transported in boats without life jackets.

"Though the depth is not much, that does not matter. Even a swimmer can die in shallow water. There is a lot of weed inside a lake," remarked the Chief Justice.

The court instructed the government to compile a list of water bodies in the state and identify their respective managers.

"So far, as individual areas are concerned, like the areas within the jurisdiction of the corporation and forest department, all these areas are to be individually tapped. They are supposed to answer to the court. Then only we will be able to call upon the report of everyone," observed the court.

To ensure safety measures for recreational activities, the court proposed expanding the suo motu PIL to encompass water bodies across the entire state. This approach aims to prompt the government to formulate an inclusive plan for their management.

During the court hearing, senior advocate Trusha Patel, appointed as an amicus to assist the court, presented her recommendations. Among them was the suggestion for adequate compensation to be provided to the families of the deceased students and teachers. Patel also proposed holding the contractor accountable for compensating the victims' families.

Additionally, she recommended that the State explore the possibility of offering government jobs to the bereaved family members.

In response, Chief Justice Agarwal remarked, "Though they were future of family and family had aspirations but a government establishment job cannot be given like this. Even the Contractor in this case is not some big company that he could provide some kind of jobs to the family members."

Brijesh Trivedi, the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA), who was present during the proceedings, requested an opportunity to speak in the case, alleging that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government was attempting to shield wrongdoers.

Expressing displeasure at this assertion, the Chief Justice firmly stated that she would not allow her courtroom to become a political platform.

CJ Agarwal remarked, "Mind your language. You are in a court of law. An advocate must know his limits in the court. If you want to continue this, we will not let you speak in our court. You are the President of the Bar Association, people should look upto you, when you come to argue here."

"This is not your demonstration manch. Bahar jaake jo bolna hai boliye, but not in this court. You don't make it a political issue. You have taken name of a political party. We will reject your application for intervention," the Chief Justice continued, stating.

The advocate later assured the bench that he would refrain from making similar statements. The Chief Justice also disclosed that she had personally visited boating sites twice and only realized after the recent incident that life jackets were not provided.

The matter has now been listed on 21.02.2024 for further hearing