Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday verbally dubbed the report on Bhagirathpura deaths “vague and merely an eye-wash” and slammed the government for use of term ‘verbal autopsy’ in it.
Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi held a hearing of over two-and-a-half hours on the public interest litigations (PILs) filed in connection with the deaths allegedly caused by consumption of contaminated water in Bhagirathpura.
The State government submitted a report stating that 23 deaths had been examined, of which 16 were attributed to contaminated water, four were described as inconclusive and three were said to be unrelated to water contamination. The court was also informed that water supply has been restored in about 30 per cent of the affected area, covering a stretch of 9.5 kilometres.
The Bench questioned the credibility of the report and expressed serious dissatisfaction with its contents.
The Bench took objection to the use of the term “verbal autopsy” in the report and asked whether it was a medically recognised concept or an expression “invented” by the authorities.
The judges observed that the report fails to clearly record the causes of death and lacks adequate reasoning and supporting material. The court directed the authorities to place more suitable, concrete and authentic documents on record to establish the reliability of the findings.
The Bench also took suo motu note of sanitation and water conditions within the court itself and instructed the concerned authorities to ensure clean and safe water supply.
Lawyers challenge report’s credibility
Counsel for the petitioners, Ajay Bagadia and Sayli Purandare, sharply criticised the report, arguing that while most deaths were labelled “inconclusive,” the authorities had arbitrarily linked 16 deaths to a single cause without scientific proof.
They contended that the committee which prepared the report was not independent and could not be considered unbiased. Reliance on verbal autopsy and oral information from staff, without adequate medical records and scientific testing, was described as a serious flaw.
