The apex judicial body, the Supreme Court , on 16 March 2026 declined to entertain a petition filed by the victims’ group Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti concerning possible mercury contamination from incinerated residual ash of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy . Instead, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court with evidence of the alleged leakage. Key Developments Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered the petitioner to file an application before the High Court, citing its two‑decade monitoring role. The petition relied on a report by Dr Asif Qureshi , indicating significant mercury presence in the ash. Earlier, the High Court had allowed disposal of the waste at the TSDF at Pithampur after a brief abeyance of its October 2025 order. Senior Advocate Anand Grover highlighted that 15 kg of mercury was detected in residual soil in 2015 and questioned the 2025 trial report that claimed no mercury detection. Important Facts The petition raised several technical and procedural concerns: The mercury content in the incinerated ash may exceed permissible limits, risking groundwater contamination. The CPCB reports from 2015 indicated high mercury, contradicting the 2025 trial run findings. The oversight committee tasked with supervising incineration has not yet responded to Dr Qureshi’s critique, leaving a gap in expert validation. The MPPCB issued a show‑cause notice in December 2024, alleging toxic seepage contaminating groundwater as close as 50 m from the facility. UPSC Relevance Understanding this case is vital for several UPSC topics: Environmental Governance : Illustrates the interplay between central agencies (CPCB), state bodies (MPPCB), and the judiciary in managing hazardous waste. Judicial Review & Public Interest Litigation : Demonstrates how the Supreme Court directs litigants to appropriate forums, emphasizing procedural propriety. Industrial Disasters & Policy Response : The Bhopal tragedy remains a benchmark for assessing regulatory frameworks for chemical safety and disaster management. Science & Technology in Policy : Highlights the role of scientific expertise (e.g., Dr Qureshi’s analysis) in shaping legal and administrative decisions. Way Forward The High Court is expected to: Examine the petitioner’s material on mercury leakage and order an independent scientific audit. Direct the oversight committee to respond to the methodological concerns raised by Dr Qureshi. Consider remedial measures such as safe retrieval of ash, groundwater monitoring, and possible relocation of the TSDF if contamination risks are confirmed. For aspirants, tracking the outcome will provide insights into how environmental litigation evolves and how multi‑level governance addresses legacy industrial hazards.