Back
Missing persons in Nepal floods: Madras HC seeks report from Centre, TN on Justice Sivagnanam
The on Wednesday directed the and the to file comprehensive on the number of persons who visited Nepal during the devastating flash floods of and the progress made in rescue operations to trace the missing. The direction came during the hearing of a that specifically sought coordinated steps to locate missing individuals, including retired judge Justice V. Sivagnanam.
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, granted the respondent authorities one week to submit their reports. The court’s intervention underscores the growing judicial role in disaster management and the protection of citizens stranded abroad, particularly when state machinery faces criticism for delayed responses.
Background: The Nepal Floods and the Pilgrimage Tragedy
In late August 2024, catastrophic flash floods triggered by an ice and rock collapse near the Nepal-Tibet border swept through large parts of Nepal. The deluge destroyed bridges, roads, and hydropower infrastructure, and the death toll has now crossed 1,000, with more than 4,000 people still missing. Over 21,300 security personnel have been deployed for relief operations, and approximately 12,000 individuals have been rescued.
Among those caught in the calamity were 57 people from Tamil Nadu and Puducherry who had travelled from Kumbakonam on via a private travel agency, . The group was on a pilgrimage to Kailash when the sudden floods and landslides struck. Among the missing was Justice V. Sivagnanam, a former judge of the , whose disappearance added a high-profile dimension to the crisis.
of Dindigul initially filed the PIL before the , seeking urgent rescue measures and accurate information for families. The petition was later transferred to the principal seat in Chennai, where it came up for hearing before the bench led by Chief Justice Dharmadhikari.
Court Proceedings: Government Submissions and Judicial Directives
During the hearing, Tamil Nadu informed the court that 305 persons from the state had visited Nepal during the calamity. Of these, 220 had been rescued and safely sent back to their native places. Full-fledged efforts were ongoing to trace the remaining 85 individuals, he added.
Notably, the Advocate General stated that the state government had taken the family members of those still missing, including the family of Justice Sivagnanam, to Kathmandu at government expense. This measure, he explained, was intended to provide first-hand updates on rescue operations and to help identify both rescued and missing persons.
The court, after hearing the submissions, directed both the Central and State governments to file a detailed report outlining the rescue and relief measures undertaken. The bench specifically asked for a clear status on the number of missing persons and the steps taken to trace them. The matter was adjourned to the following week, with the expectation that the authorities would place the current status of rescue operations before the court.
Legal Analysis: PIL as a Tool for Disaster Relief
The case highlights the increasing use of public interest litigation to compel government action in humanitarian crises. The ’s proactive stance—issuing directions even before the government’s own mechanisms could fully respond—reflects a judicial trend of holding the executive accountable for the safety of citizens abroad.
Legal experts note that the is particularly effective in disasters involving multiple jurisdictions, where coordination between the Centre and states is often lacking. By demanding a status report and setting a short timeline, the court has created a legal framework to monitor the rescue effort. This may serve as a template for future disaster-related PILs, especially when foreign nationals are involved.
The inclusion of a retired judge among the missing adds a layer of public interest, as it personalises the tragedy for the legal community. However, the court’s focus remained on the broader issue of all missing persons, not just the high-profile individual. This approach ensures that the PIL does not become a privileged petition for one family but retains its character as a matter of public importance.
Impact on Legal Practice and
For legal practitioners, this case underscores the importance of timely PIL filing in disaster situations. The swift transfer of the petition from the Madurai Bench to the principal seat and the equally swift issuance of directions demonstrate the High Court’s readiness to intervene when lives are at stake.
The judgment also sends a clear message to state governments: they must maintain transparent communication with families of missing persons and bear the cost of facilitating their presence at rescue sites. The Tamil Nadu government’s decision to fly families to Kathmandu at state expense, while commendable, was presented in court as a measure of its commitment. However, the court’s demand for a comprehensive report suggests that the judiciary expects more than just ad hoc measures—it requires systematic data collection and coordinated action.
Furthermore, the case raises questions about the role of travel agencies in organising pilgrimages to disaster-prone areas. While the PIL did not specifically target , the tragedy highlights the need for better regulatory oversight and contingency planning by private operators.
Conclusion
The ’s intervention in the Nepal flood missing persons case is a significant example of in the realm of disaster management. By directing the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government to file detailed within a week, the court has ensured that the rescue of the 85 missing individuals, including retired judge Justice V. Sivagnanam, remains a priority. The matter is expected to come up for hearing next week, when the authorities must present concrete evidence of their efforts.
As the death toll in Nepal continues to rise, the legal community will watch closely to see whether the court’s orders translate into effective rescue operations. For now, the families of the missing have at least one reason to hope: the full weight of the judiciary is behind them.
