The Telangana High Court on Thursday expressed clear frustration over the slow pace of investigation into the industrial accident of 30 June 2025, which claimed the lives of 54 workmen. During a brief but tense hearing, the division bench questioned the State on why, even after examining 237 witnesses, investigators still couldn’t form a basic opinion about who might be responsible for the deadly incident. The matter was heard in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 58 of 2025 filed by petitioner’s counsel Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj.
Background
The case revolves around a massive industrial mishap in which dozens of workers were killed and several others injured. For months, families of the victims have been waiting for clarity-not just about compensation, but also about accountability. Earlier in November, the bench had given the State a clear direction to update the Court on the probe status and submit a proper breakup of compensation paid to families of the deceased, the injured, and those still missing.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
Respondent No.1 eventually filed a counter-affidavit attaching compensation details as Annexures 2, 3, and 4. However, questions remained about the quality and direction of the investigation itself.
Court’s Observations
When the matter was taken up, the Court immediately noted troubling gaps in the probe. The counter-affidavit included a short paragraph-Paragraph 15-stating that 237 witnesses had been examined and around 15 more remained. But the judges were not convinced.
“The bench observed, ‘Merely listing the number of witnesses does not tell us whether the police have formed any opinion about the offences or the persons responsible.’”
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
The Court also pointed out something even more concerning: not a single official from the regulatory agency nor any employee of Respondent No.10 (the company involved in the incident) had been examined yet. Only relatives of the deceased and a few eye witnesses had been questioned.
The judges remarked that an incident of such magnitude “is still languishing with the investigating agency,” despite nearly five months having passed since the tragedy.
Another unexpected issue: Annexure 5-containing witness details-was not attached to the counter-affidavit, even though the paragraph referred to it. It was produced only in court by the Additional Advocate General.
The State tried to explain that the expert committee’s report was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police only recently, and the team would “act upon it.” The bench didn’t appear very impressed with this reasoning.
Read also: Gujarat High Court Rejects State’s Appeal, Says Temple-Visit Quarrel Cannot Be Treated as Cruelty
Decision
Finding the investigation unsatisfactory at this stage, the Court issued a firm direction:
The Investigating Officer must appear in person before the bench on 09 December 2025 at 2:15 p.m., carrying all relevant records and the case diary.
Meanwhile, Respondent No.10, represented through counsel Ms. Rubaina S. Khatoon, was granted two weeks to file its response.
With that, the Court posted the matter to the next date and ended the hearing.
Case Title: Public Interest Litigation on 30 June 2025 Industrial Accident
Case No.: Writ Petition (PIL) No. 58 of 2025
Case Type: Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Decision / Order Date: 27 November 2025
