SC asks Bhopal gas victims' group to approach MP HC over mercury leak fears

Top court declines to hear plea over possible mercury leakage from incinerated waste at Union Carbide site, asks victims' group to approach Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea alleging the risk of mercury leakage from residual ash generated after the incineration of toxic waste at the Union Carbide site following the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, directing the petitioner to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

 

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted liberty to Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti, an organisation representing victims of the disaster, to move the High Court with material indicating possible contamination.

 

The plea relied on a study by Dr Asif Qureshi of IIT Hyderabad, which suggested that mercury may remain in the incinerated residue, posing a risk to groundwater and the surrounding environment at the disposal site.

 

 

Disposing of the petition, the Bench observed: “The appropriate recourse would be to move an application before the High Court, along with supporting material showing apprehension of leakage in the future. Since the High Court has been monitoring the matter for two decades, we request the High Court to consider such application on merits and pass such orders as may be required in the larger public interest.”

 

The Court said the High Court should deal with the matter expeditiously.

 

The petition had challenged a December 10, 2025, order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court permitting disposal of the waste at the Pithampur facility in Dhar district. Earlier in October 2025, the High Court had rejected the State government’s proposal to store toxic residual ash at the Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) at Pithampur, noting that it was barely 500 metres from human habitation.

 

The direction was later kept in abeyance in December, allowing disposal at the site.

 

Senior Advocate Anand Grover submitted that the waste had been incinerated following the High Court’s order and raised concerns about mercury potentially remaining in the residue. Grover argued that while a 2025 trial report claimed mercury was not detected in the residue, earlier findings in 2015 had recorded around 15 kilograms of mercury in the contaminated soil. He relied on Dr Qureshi’s research, questioning the methodology used in the trial report.

 

Justice Bagchi said the Court could not assess competing scientific claims and that the oversight committee supervising the process must first respond to the expert report.

 

“The report of your expert says the methodology adopted by the oversight committee is faulty and that is why higher concentrations of mercury were not detected. That may be correct or may not be correct. We are not experts to comment on it. However, the other committee says there is no mercury content beyond the permissible limit. Due process requires that the other committee look into it and respond. This deliberation must take place before the High Court,” he observed.

 

When Grover sought directions to open the concrete containers holding the incinerated ash for fresh examination, the Bench declined, noting that the High Court was already monitoring the issue.

 

“If, for argument's sake, it is found that there is mercury. Then what do you propose? You are trying to get indirectly what you cannot get directly,” Justice Bagchi said.

 

Grover later agreed to approach the High Court but requested that the matter be assigned to a different Bench.