On September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued notices to senior officials — including the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, the Director General of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh, and the Principal Secretary of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation Department — in a contempt petition alleging flagrant non-compliance with earlier court directions to ensure proper medical care and computerisation of medical records for Bhopal gas tragedy victims.
Background: The 2012 Directions & Monitoring Mechanism
The contempt petition arises out of non-compliance with a set of directions issued by the Supreme Court on August 9, 2012, in Writ Petition No. 50 of 1998 (Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India). In that order, the Supreme Court mandated several remedial steps to be taken for the benefit of the gas victims, including:
- Computerisation (digitisation) of medical records for all victims
- Ensuring adequate medical care and specialist treatment
- Filling vacant posts of doctors, paramedical staff, and faculty
- Periodic review of compliance under a monitoring mechanism
- Transferring administrative oversight to the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur bench) to supervise implementation of its directions
To monitor compliance, a Monitoring Committee was constituted in 2004, and later reconstituted by the High Court in 2013 under the chairmanship of retired Justice V. K. Agarwal. This committee has submitted 21 reports over the years, detailing deficiencies and making recommendations to the relevant authorities.
Yet, despite more than a decade of oversight, the petitioners allege that there has been “almost total non-compliance.”
Key Allegations in the Contempt Plea
- Vacant medical/faculty positions left unfilled
The Monitoring Committee has repeatedly flagged that many faculty and doctor positions in the Bhopal Memorial Hospital & Research Centre (BMHRC) remain vacant or are in the process of being vacated. Despite repeated directives, the authorities have not acted decisively to recruit or retain medical staff.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, as early as September 7, 2016, directed the Union government to file reports on recruitment and warned that coercive action could follow. Yet, similar reminders in 2017 and later have gone unheeded. - Computerisation remains unsatisfactory / non patient-centric
Although the National Informatics Centre (NIC) and the gas hospital have claimed that the digitisation of medical records is complete, the Monitoring Committee has labelled the system as inadequate. According to the petition, the system fails to present a coherent case history or treatment timeline — making it virtually unusable for victims seeking continuity of care. - Repeated judicial warnings ignored
Since 2013, the High Court has issued multiple warnings to the relevant authorities about consequences for non-compliance. None of these warnings has produced tangible results.
Notably, on January 6, 2025, the High Court sharply criticized the callous attitude of the State, noting: “it seems that the respondents are not serious about the work to be completed.” - High Court’s inaction & restraint on punitive steps
The contempt petition points out that the matter has languished before the High Court for over 12 years, without decisive enforcement of the directions. Although a contempt petition was filed in 2015, the High Court has largely restrained itself from initiating punitive action or coercive measures against non-compliant officials.
What’s at Stake & Why the Supreme Court’s Intervention Matters
The Bhopal gas tragedy of December 1984 remains one of India’s gravest industrial disasters, with immediate fatalities and long-term health, environmental, and social consequences. Over the decades, judicial interventions have sought to ensure victims receive sustained medical care, rehabilitation, and accountability.
The 2012 directions were intended to systematize and institutionalize relief measures, particularly in medical treatment and record keeping. But when execution is so fragmented and noncommittal, justice remains only theoretical for many victims.
By issuing notice in the present contempt plea, the Supreme Court signals renewed accountability. It underscores that court orders cannot be treated as advisory suggestions, but must be implemented within time-bound frameworks. In effect, the Court is reinforcing the principle that the rights of marginalized and afflicted communities cannot be left to bureaucratic inertia.
What the Next Hearing Could Focus On
The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing of the contempt matter for November 14, 2025. Some of the issues likely to be under scrutiny include:
- Explanation from the central and state authorities on why the 2012 directives have been so poorly implemented
- Assessment of the adequacy and functionality of the computerised medical records system
- Status of recruitment and filling of doctor/faculty posts
- Measures taken (if any) by the Monitoring Committee and their responses
- Whether punitive or coercive measures should now be imposed on non-compliant officials
- The role of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in enforcing these directions and whether it was justified in restraining itself
Challenges & Possible Obstacles
- Bureaucratic delays: Even when court directions exist, delays in rulemaking, funding approvals, and recruitment can stall implementation.
- Coordination among multiple authorities: The functions span central bodies (e.g. ICMR, Ministry of Health), state agencies, hospital authorities, and monitoring committees — coordination is complex.
- Sustainability & institutional change: Implementing digitisation, maintaining systems, and retaining staff over decades requires sustained commitment beyond mere orders.
- Judicial fatigue / enforcement reluctance: Courts often hesitate to impose punitive sanctions, especially for longstanding, systemic failures.
Why This Case Still Matters
- Victims’ right to health & dignity
Many survivors of the Bhopal disaster suffer chronic ailments, requiring consistent medical monitoring and treatment. Lack of medical records, inadequate staff, and poor systems seriously impede their access to quality care. - Judicial accountability & rule of law
When court orders — particularly in public interest litigation — go unimplemented, it undermines faith in the justice system. The Supreme Court’s stepping in is a reminder that judicial pronouncements must translate to ground realities. - Legacy of a national tragedy
Even decades after the gas leak, the state’s responsibility to the affected communities continues. Judicial processes are an important mechanism to enforce that responsibility. - Precedent for future disasters / industrial harms
How the state responds to systemic judicial enforcement in Bhopal can serve as a benchmark for other disaster-related litigations, environmental cases, and public health crises.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s notice in the contempt plea is not merely a procedural development — it is a renewal of hope for many Bhopal gas victims who have long awaited justice in health and rehabilitation. The real test will lie in whether the authorities respond with urgency and integrity, or continue to delay and deflect.
As the November hearing approaches, stakeholders and civil society must keep the spotlight on accountability and implementation. After all, rights without effective remedies are hollow — and for the survivors of Bhopal, the difference between compliance and neglect can be life and death.
Also Read
Supreme Court upholds dismissal of judicial officer over false complaints against High Court judges
