Bombay High Court Calls For Uniform Warning Policy At Public Beaches, Directs State To Fund Rescue Measures

The Court was hearing four applications under Section 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 304A and 34 IPC against the trustees, principal, teachers and other employees of a college after 14 adult students drowned during a picnic at Murud beach.

A Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed: “These beaches should have regulatory mechanism for adequately warning all such visitors about the dangers of entering into the sea water by signages and warnings and also should employ safety measures, rescue measures in order to avoid unfortunate accidents leading to loss of life.”

Advocates Niranjan Mundargi & Sidheshwar Biradar appeared for the applicants. Additional Public Prosecutor Rajeshree V. Newton appeared for the State, while Advocate Abhishek Pungliya appeared for the complainant.

Background

A college organised a picnic to Murud beach for 116 students on February 1, 2016. Forty-one third-year students subsequently entered the sea, where several were swept away by an underwater current. Six students were rescued, while 14 lost their lives.

Following an accidental-death inquiry, an FIR was registered against 17 persons associated with the college, including trust office-bearers, the in-charge principal, teachers and other employees.

The applicants submitted that the students were adults and that no rash or negligent act having a direct or proximate connection with their deaths could be attributed to the applicants. The State and the complainant argued that the college and its staff were responsible for the students’ safety and had failed to provide adequate supervision or precautionary arrangements.

Court’s Observations

Uniform Warning And Rescue Measures At Public Beaches

The Court observed that visitors could not be prevented from entering the sea for recreation, but safety arrangements could make them exercise greater caution and prevent loss of life.

The Court stated: “It is a normal and given human tendency that when a human being visits a beach front or sea front the human being ventures into the sea water for some fun and frolic which cannot be curbed or prevented, but certainly, if safety measures are employed as suggested above, it will not lead to a loss of human life as visitors will exercise a greater degree of caution while venturing into the sea water.”

The Court said that the State Government, through its Tourism Ministry, should prepare a blueprint covering all beachfronts frequently visited by the public and school or college groups. It called for a uniform policy requiring warnings at conspicuous places along beaches and approach roads in English and Marathi, identifying high-tide timings and warning visitors about the hazards of entering the sea.

The Court directed the State to allocate and sanction funds for rescue measures, appoint and train lifeguards, conduct refresher programmes, erect protective grills and watchtowers, demarcate safe swimming zones and display red flags during high tide. It also called for mobile vans and jeeps to patrol beaches and for expert agencies to assist in implementing the measures permanently.

The Court observed: “It is unfortunate that every time a tragedy involving the loss of multiple lives occurs, it is followed by widespread public outcry. However, effective implementation of safety norms and other preventive measures continue to remain a matter of serious concern. I am of the opinion that deployment of life guards on all beach fronts is equivalent to appointment of firemen who are in employment of the fire brigade. They both serve the same purpose. We cannot have a knee jerk reaction after every mishap.”

The Court also noted that an earlier PIL concerning beach safety had examined warning systems, preventive measures and monitoring of a government order before being disposed of in 2019.

Occupier Principle Applied To Public Beaches

Referring to Melvin Kumar v. K.S. Harisha (2019), the Court noted that the occupier providing a facility owed a high degree of care to visitors permitted to use it.

Applying the occupier principle to the present case, the Court observed that the State Government would be the occupier or provider of the public-beach facility and was responsible for providing lifesaving amenities, warnings, signage and lifeguards.

The Court distinguished M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood (2001), which involved minor schoolchildren and consequently required a higher degree of supervision. It observed that the students involved in the present incident were adults who had entered the sea at a public beach.

No Proximate Negligent Act By College Authorities

The Court held that liability under Section 304A IPC required the death to be the direct and proximate result of a rash or negligent act attributable to the accused.

Referring to Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap (1902), Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra (1964), Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) and Sushil Ansal v. State through CBI (2014), the Court examined the requirement of a proximate act and the higher degree of negligence necessary for criminal liability.

The Court found no material establishing a direct or proximate connection between a specific negligent act of the applicants and the drowning.

The Court held: “It is seen that mere occurrence of an accident resulting in death or the alleged absence of ordinary care does not by itself retrospectively render the Applicants liable under Section 304A of the IPC. It is seen that certain circumstances and events may arise beyond the control of the persons concerned, and in the present case, the circumstances indicate that the death of the 14 students cannot be said to have been directly and proximately caused by any specific negligent act or omission on the part of the Applicants.”

The Court separately found that there was no material establishing gross or high-degree negligence on the applicants’ part.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed all four criminal applications and quashed the FIR registered at Murud Police Station under Sections 304A and 34 IPC against the college’s trustees, principal, faculty members and other employees.

The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra, whom it requested to consider taking or strengthening the beach-safety measures discussed in the judgment in the larger interest of society.

Cause Title: P.A. Inamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another, with Connected Applications

Appearances

Applicants: Advocates Niranjan Mundargi and Keral Mehta; Advocates Sidheshwar Biradar, Dinesh R. Shinde and Omhari B. Fawade

Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Rajeshree V. Newton; Advocate Abhishek Pungliya

Click here to read/download Judgment