Skip to content
Home » HOME » 10 Mistakes of administration that lead to Morbi Bridge collapse

10 Mistakes of administration that lead to Morbi Bridge collapse

10 Mistakes of administration that lead to Morbi Bridge collapse

As nine people were arrested in connection with the Morbi bridge collapse that claimed 135 lives on Sunday. Some shocking facts have come to light during the court hearing of the suspension bridge collapse case.

The suspension bridge, which is called the identity of the city, was opened to the general public after many months. The bridge built over the Machhu River was an attractive tourist destination among the local people.

The prosecution, in this case, told the court, citing a forensic report, that the deck of the bridge had been replaced, but not the cables on which it rested.

10 Mistakes of administration

Although the municipal commissioner wasted no time in blaming the private trust that took over the renovation works and supposedly reopened the bridge without requesting the government’s certificate of suitability, there are ideas that point the finger at the administrative failure.

Any accident needs some responsibility. And when an unfortunate fatal incident like this happens, it becomes a public lawsuit. It’s not just about putting the gun to the shoulder of others, but rather about the sense of empathy and collective responsibility that such deaths demand.

  • The bridge was on a cable, and the cable was not greased or oiled. From where the cable broke, the cable was rusty.
  • Documentation of what work and how it was done has not been maintained.
  • The bridge over the Machchhu river lacked the “fitness certificate” from the municipality. “It was opened to the public after the completion of the renovation work. But the local municipality had not yet issued any fitness certificate (after the renovation work),” Morbi Municipality Director Sandeepsinh Zala said.
  • The suspension bridge reopened to the public just four days ago after seven months of repair work by a private company. The incident raised a question about his renewal.
  • As per the investigation so far the contractors “were not qualified engineers” and “they did the fabrication work”.
  • It was not a free public place. One has to buy a ticket for Rs 15 to enter the bridge. So how were tickets sold over their capacity (about 100) around 400 or people in such large numbers that they allowed entry to the bridge?
  • The company was given the repair work of the bridge in 2007 and again in 2022, but why didn’t the local administration Documentation of what work was done in past?
  • It has not yet been determined if there is a sufficient presence of personnel or police personnel in the place since on weekends all tourist places receive more footfalls.
  • Some of the old bridge cables at Morbi were not changed during the seven-month renovation by the Oreva Group, but the question here is why didn’t they change the bridge cables.
  • While the bridge’s security guards have been arrested along with the ticket seller and Oreva managers, one begs the question: wasn’t it the state police’s responsibility to guard the bridge on the occasion like Chhatt?
Also Read:  India records 4.2% increase in suicides in 2022: NCRB

Also Read

Follow Ground Report for Climate Change and Under-Reported issues in India. Connect with us on FacebookTwitterKoo AppInstagramWhatsapp and YouTube. Write us on


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.