A waste disposal facility at Pithampur is seen where a huge quantity of waste from Bhopal’s Union Carbide factory has been brought for disposal, in Dhar district, Madhya Pradesh. File
| Photo Credit: PTI

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 16, 2026) asked the Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court with their concerns about the disposal of hazardous residual ash that remains after the incineration of toxic waste from the site of the infamous Bhopal gas tragedy at Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) in Bhopal.

Approximately 337 metric tonnes of hazardous waste from UCIL were incinerated, generating nearly 900 metric tonnes of toxic residual ash early last year.

Also Read | Bhopal gas tragedy: Madhya Pradesh HC asks government to share clean-up planv

In June 2025, the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board had granted Consent to Establish (C2E) for a special secured landfill at Pithampur site, where the waste was incinerated, despite its documented history of mismanagement and proximity to habitation.

The High Court had intervened in October 2025 and rejected the proposal of the State to contain the toxic residual ash—which contained mercury levels exceeding permissible limits—at a site situated barely 500 m from human habitation.

Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, senior advocate Anand Grover and advocate Anuj Kapoor, said the High Court, in the October order, had specifically recognised the “catastrophic potential of a containment breach” and directed the State to identify alternate sites far from habitation, vegetation, water sources and to explore global tendering to secure “unimpeachable technical prowess” for the project.

However, on Monday, Mr. Grover submitted that a High Court order of December 10, 2025 has kept in abeyance its October order without any change in circumstances or new expert data.

The petitioner submitted that the December stay order of the High Court has “effectively diluted judicial oversight and delegated the disposal process to an expert committee, thereby ignoring the rigorous safety mandates and alternate site requirements” for the disposal of residual ash.

The hazardous waste was the fall-out of one of the biggest industrial disasters globally. Methyl isocyanate gas had leaked out of the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant site in December 1984 to claim over 5400 lives. The waste had been lying buried near the plant site for over 40 years until the High Court had ordered its transfer and incineration at a facility in Pithampur in the State early last year.

Mr. Grover raised a troubling anomaly regarding the presence of mercury in the UCIl waste. The Central Pollution Control Board’s 2015 report had recorded high mercury concentrations of up to 904 mg/kg in the waste.

“Based on these established values, the 337 metric tonnes of waste incinerated in 2025 should have contained an estimated 49.18 kg to 221.34 kg of mercury. However, the 2025 Report inexplicably claims mercury was ‘not detected’. Scientifically, mercury does not simply disappear. Its ‘absence’ in the 2025 report indicates either a massive environmental leak or, more likely, the testing process has failed to detect it,” the petition submitted.

The NGO referred to studies conducted by Professor Asif Qureshi of IIT Hyderabad to buttress its contentions. During the 2025 trial runs, chemical additives (activated carbon and sulfur) were used to suppress mercury emissions from the chimney.

Also Read | Supreme Court asks HC to hear Bhopal gas victims’ claim of ‘misclassification’ of illnesses on merits

“While this results in ‘clean’ chimney readings, it does not eliminate the toxin; it merely concentrates it within the bag filter ash. The 2025 report lacks a “mass balance’ analysis—a mandatory scientific accounting of where the mercury went. In the 10-ton trial run alone, up to 6.88 kg of mercury is unaccounted for, likely hidden in the residual ash now slated for permanent landfilling,” the petition submitted.

However, the apex court Bench chose not to intervene and asked the petitioner to approach the State High Court, which would expeditiously consider their pleas on merits and pass orders in the larger public interest.

Published – March 16, 2026 12:43 pm IST