After 20 deaths in suspected illicit-liquor incident, MP High Court disposes plea citing retired judge-led inquiry and compensation

Following an incident in the Banda and Shahgarh areas of Sagar district involving consumption of suspected poisonous or illicit liquor, 20 people died and others required medical treatment.

The petitioner sought, among other reliefs, an independent fact-finding inquiry, a State-wide review of liquor regulation and enforcement, continuing free medical care, and compensation for victims and their families.

The State informed the Court that a one-member Judicial Inquiry Commission headed by a retired High Court judge had been appointed; investigations and enforcement action were underway; medical treatment and follow-up health camps had been provided; and financial assistance had been disbursed or sanctioned for the deceased persons’ legal heirs.

The petitioner also raised concerns about preventing similar incidents in future.

Whether the State’s response—including appointment of a judicial inquiry commission, provision of medical care, and payment of financial assistance—adequately addressed the reliefs sought in the petition.

Whether the petitioner’s concerns about preventing future incidents should be considered by the inquiry commission.

The judgment identifies no specific statute or substantive legal test governing the requested reliefs.

The Court proceeded on the basis of the State’s reported remedial and investigative measures, including the appointment of a judicial inquiry commission, and considered its earlier order in W.P. No. 16479 of 2026 concerning the Bargi Cruise incident, which had disposed of a petition after noting that a judicial inquiry commission had been constituted.

The Court considered the State’s report that a retired High Court judge had been appointed to inquire into the incident, alongside the reported provision of medical treatment and financial assistance to victims’ families. On that basis, it found that the principal prayers had been addressed and was satisfied with the steps taken by the State.

As to prevention, rather than issuing separate directions, the Court permitted petitioner’s counsel to place the grievance before the commission.