The Madhya Pradesh High Court asked the state government on Tuesday, during the hearing of petitions pertaining to the water contamination tragedy in Indore, what the scientific basis was for its conclusion that 16 of the 23 deaths in the Bhagirathpura area were confirmed to be caused by water contamination, while the remaining deaths were not.
Following the fatalities, the court noted that "nobody feels that we are drinking safe water these days," creating a "alarming situation."
A bench consisting of Justices Alok Awasthi and Vijay Kumar Shukla was hearing the applications.
The state government informed the court that 23 deaths had occurred, 16 of which were caused by contaminated water, and that five further instances were being investigated.

"The truth is still that, according to you, 16 out of 23 are confirmed. What is the foundation for this? You claim that it is now definitive. Whose report is it? Who has reached this conclusion? Justice Shukla inquired.
On behalf of the state, Additional Advocate General Rahul Sethi stated that the information was based on "case sheets, and verbal autopsy details provided by CMHO (Chief Medical and Health Officer)." However, Justice Shukla questioned how they arrived at the conclusion that some deaths were caused by contaminated water while others were not.

"In fact, I will go to the extent of saying even they are not very sure about the cause of death in the report," said Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia, who represented the petitioners in court.
According to Sethi, a report detailing the cause of death based on postmortem findings and other medical records will be submitted by the government in three days for each of the 23 cases.
After reading the death audit report, Justice Shukla noted that the term "verbal autopsy" was unfamiliar. "Are you able to educate? He questioned, "What is verbal autopsy?"

According to the statements made by the patients' attendants, the state authorities said that the phrase had to do with documentation. "Verbal information, not verbal autopsy, should have been the word," Sethi argued.
According to Justice Shukla, the term "autopsy" "indicates in our mind that you have done a postmortem, and on the basis of that, you have come to the conclusion."
We would like to know how you arrived at this conclusion based on this report, which is rather certain.You say it's only sixteen. You say it is inconclusive for perhaps six or so. We are unable to locate the report's foundation. That is crucial," the judge said.

He also brought up the reports of contaminated water in Mhow. "The situation is quite concerning... It's not safe for anyone. I'm telling you, my first thought upon hearing this case was to ask who had cleaned the High Court's water tank. I called that contractor, checked right away, and had everything cleaned. Everyone in the town is in such a panic. These days, nobody believes that the water we drink is safe. Thus, the situation is extremely concerning," Justice Shukla stated.