The Morbi bridge collapse incident reached a local court in Gujarat on Tuesday, 1 November, and amid claims from multiple sides, loopholes in the making and repair of the bridge came to light.
While the prosecution said that the contractors who worked on the bridge repair lacked the necessary training to handle such tasks, one of the managers of the company responsible for its maintenance Deepak Parekh said:
“It was the will of God (Bhagwan ni ichcha) that such an unfortunate event happened," The Indian Express reported.
The Morbi Bridge collapse claimed 135 lives on the evening of 30 October.
The bridge had been under renovation for the last seven months and had been reopened to the public on 26 October.
In the aftermath of the collapse, nine officials of the Gujarat-based Oreva group, including Parekh were arrested on 31 October,
The case reached the court because the officer investigating the case Morbi Deputy Superintendent of Police P A Zala, sought a 10-day remand of four of the nine arrested.
In between claims and counter-claims, here's a lowdown on what transpired in the courtroom.
Who Was There in Court?
The officer Investigating Sunday's bridge collapse - Morbi Deputy Superintendent of Police P A Zala
One of the managers of the Oreva Company responsible for the bridge's maintanance - Deepak Parekh
Public Prosecutor HS Panchal
Lawyer defending four of the nine men arrested, including Parekh, GK Raval
What Did the Investigating Officer Say?
The officer Investigating Sunday's bridge collapse - Morbi Deputy Superintendent of Police P A Zala made the following claims, according to The Indian Express:
> The bridge had been reopened on 26 October wihout determining permissible capacity and without government approval
> According to a forensic team report, when the bridge was shut for maintenance no other repair work except for changing of the platform (deck) was undertaken
> The cable on which the bridge was built had not been oiled or greased and the cable was also rusted from where it broke
"Had the cable been repaired this incident would not have happened," he said.
> No documentation of the maintainance work was filed
> Even after the re-opening no lifesaving equipment or lifeguards were deployed
> The quality of the material procured and used for the repair of the bridge is yet to be probed
What Did the Prosecution Say?
Public Prosecutor HS Panchal made the following submissions, according to LiveMint:
> In line with the investigating officer's statement, Panchal also told the court that the cable supporting the bridge was left unrepaired and was unable to support the weight of the new flooring
> He also said that although the flooring was changed, it added to the wright of the bridge making it snap
"The weight of the bridge increased due to the four-layered aluminium sheets for the flooring and the cable snapped due to that weight," he said.
> None of the mending contractors was qualified to complete the task
> Despite that the contractors were tasked to repair the bridge once in 2007 and then in 2022
> The accused's custody, thus, was needed to find out what the reason was for choosing them and at whose persistence they were chosen
What Did the Lawyer Defending the Four Arrested Men Say?
The Lawyer defending four of the nine men arrested, including Parekh, GK Raval said, according to news agency PTI:
> Oreva's manager Parekh had no role with respect to ascertaining the safety of the bridge
>The contractors were only responsible for handling the job works such as welding, electric fitting and they did it based on the goods they received
> Parekh also walked up to the judge and said he handled graphic design and was media manager in the company
“Everyone worked very hard, from the managing director of the company to the lower level employees, but it was the will of God (Bhagwan ni ichcha) that such an unfortunate event happened,” he said.
What Did the Court Decide?
After hearing all side, the magistrate's court ordered the police to hold four of the arrested suspects, including two OREVA Group supervisors and two subcontractors who repaired the bridge, until November 5.
As the police did not request their custody, Chief Judicial Magistrate M J Khan remanded five additional arrested men—including security guards and ticket sales clerks—in judicial custody, according to prosecutor H S Panchal.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)