In a deeply tragic case, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has held government authorities accountable for failing to secure a hazardous water reservoir, leading to the death of three minor children. The Court made it clear that minimal safety measures cannot shield authorities from liability when public safety is at risk.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a writ petition filed by a father seeking compensation after losing his three young children aged 8, 6, and 3 who drowned in a forebay tank of the Chenani Hydel Project in Udhampur in 2008.
According to the petitioner, the reservoir was left without proper fencing or barriers, making it easily accessible and dangerous, especially for children.
The State, however, denied negligence and argued that the incident occurred due to lack of parental supervision. It also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, claiming that disputed facts should be examined in a civil court.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, after examining the record, noted that certain facts were not in dispute. The respondents themselves admitted that the tank was surrounded only by a parapet wall of about two feet in height.
The Court found this admission crucial.
“The existence of only a two-feet parapet wall around a hazardous reservoir cannot, by any reasonable standard, be treated as an adequate safety measure,” the bench observed.
The Court emphasized that structures like deep water reservoirs with steep slopes are inherently dangerous and demand strict safety precautions. It added that allowing such a structure to remain inadequately protected amounts to a failure of public duty.
Rejecting the State’s argument on maintainability, the Court clarified that constitutional courts can grant compensation under writ jurisdiction when the right to life under Article 21 is violated.
“The jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide enough to provide relief where State negligence results in deprivation of life,” the Court noted.
The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a principle where negligence is inferred from the nature of the accident itself.
“The drowning of three minor children in such a facility is not an occurrence that would ordinarily happen if proper safeguards were in place,” the bench stated.
It further observed that once such an incident occurs, the burden shifts to the authorities to prove that adequate precautions were taken something the respondents failed to establish.
Concluding that the safety measures were grossly inadequate and that the authorities had failed in their duty of care, the High Court held the respondents responsible for negligence leading to the deaths.
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to compensate the petitioner for the loss of his three children, recognizing it as a violation of the fundamental right to life.
Case Details
Case Title: Arjun Kumar Sharma vs State of J&K and Others
Case Number: OWP No. 554/2009
Judge: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Decision Date: 24 March 2026
