Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking CBI/SIT probe into bridge collapses across India and effective implementation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. The bench acknowledged the petitioner's efforts in preparing and arguing his case, but observed that the Supreme Court was not the right platform for the reliefs he was seeking.

During the hearing, the petitioner, one Nitish Kumar, raised contentions regarding poor implementation of the Disaster Management Act as well as holding of elections/voting in disaster-struck states. He submitted that there was no accountability regarding bridge collapse incidents.

The plea was filed stating that continuous failure to implement the Disaster Management Act (as diluted by a 2025 amendment) amidst repeated "preventable disasters", constituted a Constitutional tort - a direct violation of Article 21.

The petitioner alleged that across different states and political regimes, a pattern was getting repeated: floods where floodplains were never zoned, collapses where bridges had no clearance, deaths where warnings were ignored, and compensation schemes replacing legal accountability. "This is not policy. This is impunity disguised as discretion", he said.

It was claimed that since enactment of the Act, the country witnessed over Rs.5 lakh crore in economic losses and 100,000+ human casualties due to floods, landslides, dam bursts, and bridge collapses. "Over 43,000 crore of taxpayers' money has been lost to corruption and negligence in disaster projects."

Further, the petitioner highlighted that the NDMA never inducted scientists in geology, hydrology, meteorology, disaster medicine, or structural engineering. Instead, it became an "all-bureaucrat body insulated from technical scrutiny".

In context of the 2025 Amendment, he assailed the following changes to the Act: removal of victim relief & loan moratoriums (Sections 12 and 13), reduced liability to token fine of Rs.10,000 (Section 60A), removed personal liability of officials (former Section 71B); conversion of mandatory audits into discretionary "internal reviews", elimination of citizen committees at district levels that earlier exposed corruption. "2025 Amendment is ultra vires the Constitution as it converts State duty to protect life into State immunity" the petitioner said.

To support his contentions, he cited the 2014 Jammu and Kashmir floods (claim: 300+ dead, 2.4 lakh houses destroyed), 2015 Chennai floods (claim: 500+ dead, 18 lakhs displaced), 2022 Morbi bridge collapse (claim: 135 dead), 2023 Himachal Pradesh and Punjab floods (claim: dozens dead, Rs.13000+ crores loss), 2025 Pune Indrayani bridge collapse (claim: 20+ dead), 2025 Gujarat Gambhira bridge failure (claim: 40+ dead), 2025 Bihar floods (claim: 25 lakhs affected, 12 dead) and 2025 Punjab floods (claim: 25 lakh affected, 56 dead).

Besides a Court-monitored probe into disaster-governance failures, the petitioner sought registration of FIRs over diversion of funds, negligent deaths, etc. and supervisory review of closures. He further prayed for preservation and audit of forensic material regarding bridges (structural fitness/load test certificates, etc.), and directions for District Magistrates to pass prohibitory orders so as to ensure crowd safety in disaster-struck districts. The petitioner also sought directions to the Election Commission to temporarily regulate/suspend election rallies/processions in affected areas during relief/rehabilitation period.

After hearing him, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: NITISH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(Crl.) No. 394/2025

Click here to read order