MP High Court Demands FIR Explanation in Infant ICU Deaths

INDORE, MP – In a significant exercise of its constitutional powers, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of a deeply disturbing incident involving the deaths of two infants in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the state-run Maharaja Yeshwant Rao (M.Y.) Hospital. The court's intervention, prompted by news reports alleging the infants died from rat bites, has cast a harsh spotlight on systemic failures in public healthcare, administrative accountability, and the fundamental duties of law enforcement.

A division bench, comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, has sharply questioned the state machinery, directing the Police Commissioner of Indore to provide a formal explanation for the conspicuous absence of a First Information Report (FIR) in the matter. This directive lies at the heart of the court's inquiry, transforming a tragic incident into a crucial test of governance and the rule of law.

The Genesis of Judicial Intervention: A Prima Facie Case of Gross Negligence

The High Court initiated proceedings on its own motion—a suo motu action reserved for matters of grave public importance where the constitutional rights of citizens are at stake. During a hearing on September 10, the bench made a powerful preliminary observation, stating that the incident prima facie reflected "gross negligence on the part of the hospital administration."

The court's concern was compounded by the apparent lack of immediate and meaningful accountability. It noted that despite the severity of the allegations, which point to a catastrophic failure in ensuring a safe and sterile environment for the most vulnerable patients, "no action was taken against any officers, doctors or employees over such negligence." This initial observation set the stage for a broader judicial probe into the layers of administrative apathy that may have contributed to the tragedy. The fact that one of the deceased infants belonged to a tribal family from Dhar District added a dimension of social justice to the proceedings, underscoring the court's role as a protector of marginalized communities.

The State's Defense and the Court's Unyielding Scrutiny

In a subsequent hearing on September 15, the state and hospital authorities presented their defense. The Dean of the MGM Medical College, which is associated with M.Y. Hospital, filed a detailed reply attempting to shift the narrative. The court summarized the respondents' position: "The respondents are trying to justify that the two infants did not die due to rat bites but due to multiple congenital malformations."

This defense was accompanied by a litany of systemic issues, which the court noted as admissions of institutional failure. The hospital cited a shortage of staff, poor building maintenance by the Public Works Department (PWD), and issues with a third-party contractor, HLL Infra Tech Services Limited (HITES), whose pest control contract had reportedly been terminated. While the hospital claimed that some "disciplinary action has been taken against nursing staff," the bench appeared unimpressed with what could be perceived as an attempt to deflect responsibility onto lower-level employees while systemic rot persists.

Expanding the Ambit of Accountability

Unsatisfied with the initial explanations, the High Court significantly widened the scope of its inquiry. It impleaded the Public Works Department and HLL Infra Tech Services Limited as formal respondents, signaling that accountability extends beyond the hospital walls to every entity responsible for maintaining the public health infrastructure.

The bench issued a series of pointed directives to the PWD, demanding a comprehensive report on critical infrastructure aspects of the hospital and its associated medical college. The court has sought detailed answers on: 1. The internal and external condition of the M.Y. Hospital and MGM Medical College buildings. 2. The structural life expectancy of these buildings. 3. The state of the drainage and electrification systems. 4. A budgetary estimate required for necessary improvements.

Furthermore, the court has mandated the PWD to prepare a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the comprehensive "renovation, repair and maintenance" of the medical college, hostels, and residential quarters. This forward-looking directive indicates the court's intent not only to assign blame for past events but also to compel preventative action to avert future tragedies.

The Central Legal Question: Why No FIR?

The most critical legal directive from the bench remains its demand for an explanation from the Police Commissioner of Indore. The court explicitly ordered the Commissioner "to file a reply explaining why an FIR has not been registered in the case of the death of two infants."

This question strikes at the core of the criminal justice process. The registration of an FIR is the first mandatory step in investigating a cognizable offense. Allegations of death due to gross negligence, which could potentially fall under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (causing death by negligence), typically warrant an immediate FIR and investigation. The police's failure to do so in a case of this magnitude raises serious questions about their adherence to procedural law and their independence from administrative influence. The court's focus on this lapse ensures that the matter is not treated merely as an administrative inquiry but is examined through the lens of potential criminal culpability.

The case, titled In reference Suo Motu v State of MP (WP-36817-2025) , has Senior Advocate Piyush Mathur and Kirti Patwardhan serving as Amicus Curiae, assisting the court in this vital public interest matter. The state is represented by Additional Advocate General Vishwajeet Joshi.

As the High Court prepares for the next hearing on October 6, 2025, the legal and administrative communities are watching closely. The proceedings are a powerful reminder of the judiciary's role as a constitutional watchdog, capable of piercing the veil of administrative inertia to demand accountability for the most fundamental of rights—the right to life. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for the standards of care in public hospitals and the non-negotiable duty of the state to protect its most defenseless citizens.