There is still no clarity on how many people have died due to contaminated water in Indore's Bhagirathpura, with official figures sharply contradicting claims from the ground. While local residents insist that 28 people have lost their lives, the Madhya Pradesh government told the Indore Bench of the High Court on Tuesday that 23 deaths have been recorded, of which 16 were allegedly caused by contaminated water.
The disclosure came during a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) hearing that stretched for over two and a half hours before a division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi. However, instead of bringing clarity, the government's report raised more red flags.
According to the report, the cause of death remains uncertain in four cases, while three deaths were not linked to water contamination at all. The bench was informed that water supply has been restored in 30 per cent of Bhagirathpura, covering a pipeline stretch of 9.5 kilometres.
The High Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the report, particularly objecting to the use of the term "verbal autopsy." The bench asked whether this was a recognised medical term or one "invented by the committee itself."
The judges noted that causes of death were not clearly established, reasoning was missing, and the report lacked supporting medical and scientific evidence. The court directed authorities to submit more appropriate, concrete, and authentic documents to establish the credibility of their findings.
The bench also raised concerns over the interim relief measures, questioning how the committee intended to ensure effective and unbiased implementation of its own recommendations, especially when deaths in the area are continuing, and their causes remain disputed.
Advocates Ajay Bagadia and Sayali Purandare, appearing for the petitioners, sharply questioned the reliability of the government's findings. They argued that attributing 16 deaths to a single cause while simultaneously declaring most cases "inconclusive" is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.
They further contended that the committee which prepared the report is not independent, and the possibility of bias cannot be ruled out. Relying primarily on verbal autopsies and oral inputs from staff, without consistent post-mortem reports, medical records, or advanced scientific testing, was described as a serious procedural flaw.
The court also took note of the lack of uniformity in post-mortem examinations, observing that this inconsistency renders the findings unclear and unreliable.
Responding to the court's concerns, the Indore Municipal Corporation said it is willing to cooperate fully and will submit a detailed reply. The corporation claimed that several tests, including urine and organic content tests, have been conducted, new pipelines have been laid, and water pollution has now been eliminated. It also assured the court that regular progress reports would be filed.
Advocate Ajay Bagadia dismissed these assurances as inadequate, demanding that the court order three internationally recognised water-quality tests to determine the real extent of contamination. He also sought the sealing of tube wells and, citing lack of faith in the existing panel, requested the formation of an independent committee.
The previous hearing in the Bhagirathpura case was held on January 20, lasting nearly one and a half hours, but yielded no firm conclusions. At that time, the government attributed the contamination to a toilet at a police station, a claim the High Court openly questioned, asking whether such a source could realistically cause contamination severe enough to result in deaths. The court had also sought clarity on whether any chemical substances were detected in the water.
