State liable under Article 226 for deaths caused by failure to adequately secure hazardous public installations.

The petitioner, a resident of Village Pakhlai living below the poverty line, sought compensation for the death of his three minor children—Anu Devi (8), Preeti Devi (6), and Sunil (3)—who drowned in the forebay tank of the Chenani Hydel Project on June 9, 2008.

The children accidentally slipped into the tank, which featured steep plastered slopes and deep water, while following their parents to agricultural fields.

FIRs were registered, and revenue authorities recommended compensation on humanitarian grounds.

The petitioner alleged the respondents were negligent in failing to provide adequate fencing.

The respondents contended the petition was non-maintainable due to disputed facts, argued that the incident resulted from parental negligence, and stated that the reservoir was secured by a two-foot-high parapet wall constructed prior to 1971.

The court primarily applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and imposes a duty on the State to safeguard citizens.

It relied on Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, establishing that constitutional courts have the obligation to grant compensation for fundamental rights violations notwithstanding civil remedies.

The court invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) as applied in Ram Kishore v. MCD and Darshan v. Union of India, asserting that negligence is presumed when the State fails to secure hazardous sites.

The court applied the principle of "Strict Liability" for hazardous activities as articulated in MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association.

The court applied the rule that children of tender age cannot be imputed with contributory negligence, per Subramanium v. DMRC.

The court rejected the respondents' plea regarding maintainability, ruling that where State inaction results in deprivation of life, Article 226 provides a robust public law remedy.

It found no "disputed questions of fact" because the respondents admitted the reservoir was guarded only by a two-foot parapet wall.

The court reasoned that a two-foot wall is "wholly insufficient" and "illusory" for a hazardous deep-water reservoir, representing a gross failure in the duty of care.

Applying res ipsa loquitur, the court determined that such a tragedy would not occur if adequate safeguards were in place.

It further dismissed the "parental negligence" defense, holding that authorities must foresee the presence of children near hazardous structures and that minors lack the discretion to appreciate such risks.

The court emphasized that the State's liability is "strict" and "non-delegable" when engaging in inherently dangerous activities.

The court declined to use the multiplier method, opting for uniform compensation to avoid speculative assessments of a child's future earnings.

The respondents were directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 for each deceased child (totaling Rs. 6,00,000) to the petitioner within eight weeks.

Additionally, the court directed the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory to formulate a comprehensive policy for fencing and installing warning signs at all hazardous installations to prevent future tragedies.