The Supreme Court of India has declined to hear a petition regarding the potential leakage of mercury from toxic waste residue at the former Union Carbide site in Bhopal.

Instead, the bench directed the Petitioners to seek relief from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which has been monitoring the disaster's aftermath for twenty years.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "The petitioners, who are relying upon the report of Dr. Asif Qureshi, Professor at IIT Hyderabad, apprehend that since a huge quantity of mercury has been noticed in the dumped ash, there is a likelihood of its leakage, causing contamination of groundwater and other environmental issues in and around the site of disposal. Since the residual ash has now been dumped at the site following all the procedures, methods, and recommendations of the oversight committee, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the 10th of December 2025 passed by the High Court. The appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be to move an application before the High Court along with the supporting material to flag the issue of their apprehension of leakage in the future. Since the High Court has been monitoring the matter for over two decades, we request the High Court to consider such an application on merits and pass such orders as may be required in the larger public interest."


Senior Advocate Anand Grover appeared for the Petitioners.

The Court ordered, "After the mediation and final disposal of the hazardous waste and the residual ash generated after the incineration of waste lying at the site of Union Carbide India Limited in Bhopal, arising from the Bhopal gas tragedy. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in PIL, during Writ Petition...has been issuing directions from time to time, ensuring judicial monitoring including with respect to the disposal and decontamination, including the prevention of contamination of soil and groundwater in and around the UCIL premises due to toxic waste. It is not in dispute that the residual ash generated after the incineration of toxic material has now been dumped at the TSDF facility at Pithampur."

The Court noted that since the High Court has been monitoring the environmental aftermath of the 1984 tragedy for two decades, it is the most appropriate forum to evaluate new technical evidence regarding groundwater contamination.

A plea was filed assailing an order passed by the High Court on December 2025 that allowed the disposal of incinerated waste at a facility in Pithampur.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, representing the victims' group, argued that official reports claiming the residue was mercury-free were scientifically flawed. He relied on recent research by Dr. Asif Qureshi of IIT Hyderabad, which suggested that previous testing methodologies failed to detect significant concentrations of mercury. Grover warned that approximately 15 kilograms of mercury identified in the soil could eventually leach into the environment if not properly addressed.

Grover said, "Now, let me just explain that briefly. There was a site selected. There is a problem with that; it is within 500 meters, and there is seepage which contains pollution. I am not on that. What they have done, pursuant to the order of the High Court which is impugned, is they have carried out the incineration. Now, the big problem: there were trial incinerations 1, 2, and 3. On that, there is a report which Your Lordship will see at page 190, which is very important. Briefly, I will explain to Your Lordship. The learned expert, Dr. Qureshi, says there is a major problem: you are not measuring the things properly and there is mercury in that which you are not actually measuring. The expert committee—just see this report—they have carried out the incineration and they say everything is okay. But look at that. There was an expert committee appointed. Now, the report that they have filed in the High Court just on Friday or so—the expert committee—I do not know whether it is consulted; just give copies. But before that, my Lord, I want to explain, just see page 190 of the SLP. There, Dr. Qureshi explains that in the trial runs—just please understand, my Lord—before that..."

Justice Bagchi replied, " He is saying that because the temperature was high, that is the reason the content of mercury in the... I tell Your Lordship. In the area, it has not been correctly computed, with due respect to Dr. Qureshi's report. This needs to be responded to by the oversight committee because the oversight committee was never... Inasmuch as the oversight committee, according to Dr. Qureshi's report, has not looked into these, the oversight committee also has not had the opportunity of responding to Dr. Qureshi's findings. So, you go back to the..."

Grover added, "They have incinerated the whole waste. They have dumped it in a concrete box. Now, what is happening? There is mercury in it which will leach out. That's what I want to explain. Just see page 190 for a moment. Very important because what happened, my Lord... Sir,"

Justice Bagchi remarked, "This is the question which now the High Court needs to address...Sir, you are coming back to something which is already done. We cannot undo it...The oversight committee says that the trial runs do not show any impermissible limit of emission of either gases or leaching of material. You have a contrary report and you say that the methodology... Sir, if we can help you to formulate your argument: The report of your experts says that the methodology adopted by the oversight committee is faulty, and that is why the higher concentration of mercury could not be detected. It may be correct. It may not be correct. We are not experts to comment on it."

"However, due process requires that the other committee—which says that the mercury content or any other content is not beyond permissible limits, whereas another report says that it may be above permissible limits—that committee requires to look into it and respond. This deliberation must take place before the High Court", Justice Bagchi added.

Grover replied, "Now, what Dr. Qureshi says is there is incineration, there is a residue, and the residue does not have it. The emission goes through filter bags, then it goes into the air. In the air and in the ash, there is nothing. They have not measured the filter bags, one. That is the first point. Now, even now they are not measuring. All the filter bag residue has gone into the concrete box. In order for it to be measured, the report cannot say anything because..."

Justice Bagchi said that these concrete containers were like a "black box," expressing hesitation to order them opened. The Court feared that unsealing the boxes for verification could inadvertently "expose the area to further chances of contamination."

Justice Bagchi said, "Because we do not permit the concrete box to be opened. Yes. The concrete box is like a black box which should remain completely immune...Just for the purpose of verification, whether your report is correct, we will expose the area to further chances of contamination by opening up...Let us for argument's sake accept that there is mercury. Then what do you propose? You have to take it out...You are trying to get something indirectly, which now you cannot get directly."

Justice Bagchi observed that while the IIT report challenged the oversight committee’s findings, the Court could not act as a scientific expert to resolve the dispute. The bench emphasized that the oversight committee must first respond to Dr. Qureshi’s findings, and this deliberation should occur before the High Court. Consequently, the bench declined a request to order the immediate opening and inspection of the concrete disposal boxes.

The Supreme Court disposed of the petition by urging the High Court to consider the new material "expeditiously" and pass necessary orders in the larger public interest.

Cause Title: Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti v. Union of India [Diary No. 8813/2026]

CJI Surya KantJustice Joymalya BagchiBhopal Gas Tragedy

Aastha Kaushik