Natural disaster blamed for landslide deaths as J-K court quashes plea against Vaishno Devi board

Jammu: A court in Jammu and Kashmir's Katra has dismissed a plea seeking registration of an FIR against Vaishno Devi shrine board officials for the death of 35 pilgrims in a landslide on the tracks to the shrine on August 26, holding that a natural disaster caused it.

It, however, said the ruling will not have any bearing on the inquiry ordered into the tragedy by Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha three days after the incident.

The plea alleged that despite weather advisories issued by the meteorological centre in Srinagar and the J-K Disaster Management Authority, the pilgrimage was not suspended, which amounted to criminal negligence by the CEO and other officials of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board.

Sub-Judge (Judicial Magistrate, First Class) Katra Sidhant Vaid dismissed the plea, which sought directions to the police to register an FIR under Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 106 (causing death by rash or negligent acts) of the BNS.

“From the perusal of the allegations levelled in the complaint, statements recorded by the police and the police report, it is very much clear that the proximate and immediate cause of the unfortunate incident was a natural disaster.

“Even if what has been pleaded in the complaint is presumed to be true, then also non-compliance of the advisories issued by the meteorological department could be a lapse on the administrative side and no element of criminal negligence is present,” the judge said.

“In my considered opinion, the case of criminal negligence is not made out, and no cognisable offence is prima facie made out,” he said.

Referring to police reports and witness statements, the court said the pilgrimage was halted from time to time whenever required in the interest of public safety and standard operating procedures were followed.

Witnesses said it rained for two to three days prior to the August 26 incident, and the Yatra had been intermittently stopped on August 24 and 25 due to the heavy downpour.

The court held that for criminal liability under Section 106 of the BNS, there must be proof of a grossly negligent or rash act, foreseeability of harm and a direct causal link between the act or omission and the death. “Mere error of judgment or an administrative lapse does not suffice for criminal liability,” it said.

The court ruled out the offence of culpable homicide, noting that intention and negligence represent different states of mind and the complaint itself alleged negligence rather than intent.