Supreme Court Refers Bhopal Gas Ash Disposal Issue to Madhya Pradesh High Court The apex Supreme Court on 16 March 2026 instructed the Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding the disposal of hazardous residual ash from the 1984 disaster site. Key Developments Approximately 337 metric tonnes of toxic waste from UCIL were incinerated, producing about 900 metric tonnes of residual ash. The C2E for a secured landfill at Pithampur was issued in June 2025 despite past mismanagement. The MP High Court, in October 2025, rejected the state’s plan to locate the ash dump merely 500 m from residential areas, citing the risk of a containment breach. A December 2025 High Court order stayed the October order, effectively handing disposal decisions to an expert committee, which the petitioners argue dilutes judicial oversight. Tests revealed mercury levels in the ash exceeding permissible limits; a 2015 CPCB report recorded up to 904 mg/kg mercury in the original waste. Important Facts The incineration process allegedly left 49–221 kg of mercury unaccounted for, as the 2025 report claimed mercury was “not detected”. During trial runs, additives like activated carbon and sulfur were used to mask mercury emissions, resulting in clean chimney readings but concentrating mercury in the ash. Professor Asif Qureshi highlighted the absence of a mass‑balance analysis, indicating possible hidden mercury in the ash slated for permanent landfilling. The Supreme Court bench was headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , with senior advocates Anand Grover and Anuj Kapoor representing the petitioners. UPSC Relevance This case intertwines several UPSC‑relevant themes: environmental governance (hazardous waste management, mercury contamination), judicial oversight (role of Supreme Court and High Courts in environmental disputes), and public‑policy implementation (granting of C2E, tendering for technical expertise). Understanding the legal framework—such as the Environment Protection Act —and the procedural safeguards for vulnerable communities is essential for GS2 and GS3 preparation. Way Forward The High Court is expected to re‑examine the site selection, ensuring distance from habitation, water bodies, and vegetation, and to mandate a comprehensive mass‑balance study of mercury. The state may need to invite global tenders to secure “unimpeachable technical prowess” for safe ash containment, as directed by the October order. Continuous monitoring by the CPCB and transparent reporting will be crucial to prevent another environmental catastrophe.