Sigachi accident: Telangana HC questions delay in probe, seeks status of victims’ compensation
The Telangana High Court expressed concern over the slow investigation into the Sigachi Industries fire and delay in compensating victims. It directed the state to submit FIR details, worker data, and compensation status. The matter will be heard next on August 27.
Hyderabad: Chief Justice AK Singh and Justice Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Thursday heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by retired scientist K Babu Rao relating to the fire accident at Sigachi Industries, expressing concern over the pace of investigation, lack of safety enforcement, and delays in compensating affected workers.
The petitioner raised serious concerns about the working conditions at the factory, stating that many of the deceased and injured were migrant and contract labourers, not regular employees. He urged the court to ensure the State provides fair and adequate compensation to all affected workers, irrespective of their employment status.
Also Read
During the hearing, the Chief Justice questioned the state government on key aspects of the criminal investigation, including the sections under which the FIR was registered, whether any arrests had been made, and the current status of the probe. The Government Pleader for the Home Department confirmed that no arrests had been made so far.
The Bench also sought details on the number of workers present at the time of the incident and asked for a breakdown of their employment status—whether permanent, casual, or daily wage.
The judges directed the state to submit the statutes under which the company could be held accountable, along with comprehensive details of compensation disbursed so far.
In response, the government submitted that reports from both the High-Level Committee and the Expert Committee were awaited. However, the court clarified that the criminal investigation must proceed independently of committee findings.
The Bench stressed that the state must not treat the matter as adversarial litigation, and should actively support the families of the victims.
While the Additional Advocate General sought four weeks’ time to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit, the court allowed only three weeks, citing the urgency and seriousness of the issue.
The Bench remarked that such tragedies must not fade with time or slip into institutional neglect.
The matter was posted for the next hearing on August 27. The state was represented by the Additional Advocate General and Government Pleaders for the Home, Labour, and Pollution Control Board.
