← AiTimeline Home

Society · Infrastructure Safety · 2022–2026

Morbi Bridge Collapse: Timeline, Causes and Aftermath

📅 Updated 21 October 2026📖 20 milestones⚠️ 135 dead
Advertisement

View as Web Story

In short

Morbi bridge collapse timeline: 135 deaths on 30 Oct 2022, cable and repair findings, the Oreva case, bail, compensation and court status to 2026.

Advertisement

Latest Story

The Morbi bridge collapse of 30 October 2022 killed 135 people when a British-era suspension bridge over the Machchhu River in Gujarat gave way four days after it reopened. This timeline runs newest first, separating what investigators have reported, what the prosecution alleges and what courts have actually decided, because no conviction has been reported and the trial’s status remains unconfirmed.

Advertisement
Advertisement

💡 Short Answer

On 30 October 2022 at about 6:40 pm the Morbi suspension bridge in Gujarat collapsed, killing 135 people (official figure). It had reopened on 26 October after six months of repairs by the operator, Oreva Group’s Ajanta Manufacturing. Preliminary findings cited a corroded cable, a heavier deck, no load test and overcrowding. Ten people were chargesheeted; none has been convicted, and the trial’s status is unconfirmed.

⚡ Morbi Bridge Collapse Quick Facts
Date30 Oct 2022, ~6:40 pm
Official deaths135
Reopened26 Oct 2022
OperatorAjanta (Oreva Group)
Accused10 chargesheeted
ConvictionsNone reported
⚡ Quick Answers — AI Overview Ready

Morbi Bridge Collapse: Key Questions

When did the Morbi bridge collapse?
At about 6:40 pm on Sunday 30 October 2022, four days after it reopened following about six months of repairs. The official death toll is 135.
What caused it?
No final cause has been established in court. Preliminary findings cited a corroded main cable (22 of 49 wires), an aluminium deck, no load test, weak oversight and a crowd far above capacity.
Who is accused?
Ten people were chargesheeted in January 2023, including Oreva Group managing director Jaysukh Patel, who is on Supreme Court bail. Charges were reported not framed as of October 2025.
Has anyone been convicted?
No conviction has been reported. A trial was expected in June 2026 per a 2025 report, but no later coverage confirming it was found.
📚 Key Takeaways

The Morbi Case in Ten Points

  • Bridge: a 19th-century suspension bridge about 230 m long and 1.25 m wide, run by a private operator under a 15-year contract signed 7 March 2022.
  • Reopening: 26 October 2022 after six months of repairs; no load test was reported.
  • Collapse: 30 October 2022; 135 dead (official), more than 50 of them children.
  • Crowd: more than 500 people reported against a capacity of 125.
  • Cable: 22 of 49 wires in the main cable were reported corroded, 27 recently broken.
  • Arrests: nine staff and contractors on 31 October 2022; Patel surrendered on 31 January 2023.
  • Chargesheet: about 1,262 pages naming ten accused under IPC 304 and other sections.
  • Compensation: Rs 10 lakh per death ordered from Oreva on 22 February 2023; Rs 14.62 crore deposited.
  • Courts: Supreme Court bail 22 March 2024; High Court refused a CBI probe in October 2024.
  • Status: charges reported not framed as of October 2025; current status unconfirmed.

Morbi Bridge Collapse Timeline, Latest First

Each entry is tagged by theme and ends with why it matters. Use the filter to isolate a theme.

🎯 Interactive: Filter the Timeline

Courts, probe findings or the disaster itself? Filter the Morbi bridge collapse timeline by theme.

–

Advertisement

Status check: no confirmed report that the trial has begun Courts & accountability

Four years on 30 Oct 2026Charges reported not framed as of Oct 2025Trial date reported as Jun 2026Current status unconfirmed

A report published on 30 October 2025 said charges had still not been framed because of a Gujarat High Court stay, and that the trial was expected to begin in June 2026. A search for later coverage found no confirmation that charges were framed or that the trial started, and no ruling on the victims’ plea to prosecute the accused under IPC 302 (murder) instead of IPC 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Two petitions seeking to add the Morbi municipality and the then district collector as accused were reported as pending in the Supreme Court. Readers should check the Gujarat High Court case-status system and the Morbi sessions court before relying on this entry.

Why it matters: The legal status of a 2022 disaster can remain unsettled for years; absence of a trial report is not a verdict either way.

High Court reportedly defers Oreva MD’s plea on charge framing Courts & accountability

Reported Oct 2025Gujarat High CourtJaysukh Patel’s challengePer Times of India report cited in the brief

Reports in October 2025, including a Times of India item cited in the brief, said the Gujarat High Court deferred a hearing on a plea by Oreva Group managing director Jaysukh Patel challenging the framing of charges. The Morbi sessions court had earlier in 2025 rejected discharge applications by Patel and co-accused, and a High Court stay was reported to be holding up charge framing. This entry rests on those reports; the original page could not be opened for this update, so the exact hearing date and next date are not stated.

Why it matters: Procedural hearings, not findings of guilt, decide when a trial can start.
16 Sep
2025

Government proposes major penalty on former civic chief officer Courts & accountability

Indian Express, 16 Sep 2025Affidavit filed 29 Aug 2025In compliance with HC order of 18 Jul 2025GPSC agreed to the recommendation

The Indian Express reported on 16 September 2025 that the state government told the Gujarat High Court a “major penalty” had been proposed against the then chief officer of Morbi municipality, Sandeepsinh Zala. The report says the proposal followed the Gujarat Public Service Commission’s agreement with the recommendation after disciplinary action began, and that it came in an affidavit by the Under Secretary of the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, filed on 29 August in compliance with a High Court order of 18 July. The brief describes the penalty as a reduction in the time scale of pay; the part of the article that was readable without a subscription does not state the penalty, so that detail is unconfirmed. Zala was suspended in November 2022, and the SIT blamed him for deviating from procedure when the agreement was signed.

Why it matters: Accountability here is administrative as well as criminal, and it moved slowly.

Main accused is felicitated at a Morbi event Courts & accountability

Reported 16 Nov 2024Jaysukh PatelVictims’ families criticised the event

In mid-November 2024, about eight months after the Supreme Court released him on bail, Jaysukh Patel was felicitated at a Morbi event, where he was weighed against modak sweets, according to the account summarised on Wikipedia. Relatives of the victims criticised the event. The bail order barred him from entering Morbi during the trial; the entry does not allege any breach, and the account of the event is reported rather than tested in court.

Why it matters: Public reception of an accused person, while a case is pending, became a flashpoint for families still awaiting a trial.
17 Oct
2024

High Court declines to hand the probe to the CBI Courts & accountability

Reported 17 Oct 2024Gujarat High Court division benchVictims’ kin sought a CBI inquiry and murder charges

A division bench of the Gujarat High Court headed by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal refused to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, as victims’ relatives had asked. The bench said it could not examine the correctness of an investigation that was under way. The petitioners had argued that no civic official had been made an accused even though the special investigation team had held some of them responsible, and their lawyer also sought murder charges in the main FIR. The state said a chargesheet had been filed in 2023.

Why it matters: Courts distinguished between supervising an investigation and replacing it.
22 Mar
2024

Supreme Court orders Jaysukh Patel’s release on bail Courts & accountability

22 Mar 2024Supreme CourtBail conditions set by the trial courtBarred from entering Morbi during trial

The Supreme Court ordered the release of Oreva Group managing director Jaysukh Patel on 22 March 2024 and directed the trial court to set conditions, one of which barred him from entering Morbi while the trial lasted. The Gujarat High Court had rejected his regular bail plea in December 2023, observing that, prima facie, he knew of the risk from poor maintenance yet allowed the bridge to stay open. By then several other accused had been granted bail by the High Court.

Why it matters: Bail is not an acquittal; the High Court’s prima facie remarks and the Supreme Court’s order sat side by side.
10 Oct
2023

SIT final report pins blame on Oreva management and civic officials Probe & findings

Submitted to the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday 10 Oct 2023Five-member SITHindustan Times saw the report75-80 persons safe load

The five-member special investigation team submitted its “Final Report on Morbi Bridge Incident” to the Gujarat High Court, and the Hindustan Times, which saw a copy, reported that it blamed Oreva’s management, including managing director Jaysukh Patel and managers Dinesh Dave and Deepak Parekh, while noting that responsibility might be apportioned differently among them. It also faulted three office bearers of the municipality’s executive committee for deviating from procedure and said the chief officer signed the agreement. The report said Oreva sub-contracted the work to Dev Prakash Solutions, a “non-competent agency”, and that the bridge opened on 26 October without a fitness report or consultation with the municipality, with no limit on people or tickets. It put the cause as the breaking of the main cable on the Darbargarh side and estimated a safe load of 75 to 80 people if all wires were sound, a figure that would have fallen sharply because 22 of 49 wires were already broken by corrosion. Patel was then in Morbi jail.

Why it matters: The final report moved the focus from the instant of collapse to the decisions made before it, and it named both the operator and civic officials.

Oreva deposits Rs 14.62 crore as interim compensation Courts & accountability

Apr 2023Deposit with the state legal services authorityTwo equal instalments

In April 2023 Oreva told the High Court that it had deposited the whole Rs 14.62 crore needed for the interim compensation ordered in February, in two equal instalments with the state legal services authority. The payment was interim and made in the High Court’s own public-interest proceedings; it did not end the criminal case. Later reports on the second anniversary said some victims still felt compensation and closure were incomplete.

Why it matters: Compensation and criminal liability ran on separate tracks.
22 Feb
2023

High Court orders Rs 10 lakh for each deceased victim’s family Courts & accountability

22 Feb 2023Chief Justice Sonia Gokani, Justice Sandeep BhattRs 2 lakh for each injuredWithin four weeks

In its suo motu proceedings the Gujarat High Court directed Oreva Group to pay Rs 10 lakh as interim compensation to the family of each person killed and Rs 2 lakh to each injured person within four weeks. The company had offered less; reports differ on the sums. The court noted that the Centre and the state had together already paid Rs 10 lakh to the family of each victim, and made clear that paying compensation did not remove the managing director’s exposure to the criminal trial.

Why it matters: A court-set figure replaced a negotiated offer, at Oreva’s expense.
20 Feb
2023

Reuters reports preliminary findings: corroded cable, no load test Probe & findings

Reported 20 Feb 202322 of 49 wires in the cable corroded27 broke recentlyAluminium sheets replaced wooden planks

Reuters reported on preliminary findings of the five-member special investigation team. Of the 49 wires in the upstream main cable, 22 were corroded, suggesting they had broken earlier, while the other 27 had recently broken. The renovated deck had old suspenders welded to new ones and wooden planks replaced by aluminium sheets. The report said no load test or structural test was done before reopening, that main cables were not inspected or replaced, and that far more people were on the bridge than its capacity. It faulted Oreva for unrestricted access, weak security and outsourcing repairs to a non-competent agency, and said the civic chief officer had not acted as the law required when signing the agreement.

Why it matters: The most detailed public account of how the structure failed, and still described as preliminary.
31 Jan
2023

Oreva MD Jaysukh Patel surrenders before a Morbi court Courts & accountability

31 Jan 2023Judicial magistrate court, MorbiCustody of the SIT until 8 Feb

Jaysukh Patel, the managing director of Oreva Group’s Ajanta Manufacturing, surrendered before the Morbi judicial magistrate on 31 January 2023, four days after the chargesheet named him. He was sent into the custody of the special investigation team until 8 February. Nine other accused had been arrested within days of the collapse; Patel was not among them and was not named in the first FIR.

Why it matters: The most senior person named by police entered custody three months after the disaster.
27 Jan
2023

Police file a 1,262-page chargesheet against ten accused Courts & accountability

27 Jan 2023MorbiIPC 304, 308, 114, 336, 337Patel named as the tenth accused

Gujarat police filed a chargesheet of about 1,262 pages naming ten accused, including Jaysukh Patel as the tenth, under IPC sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 308, 114, 336 and 337. The police case described failures in the repair, maintenance and reopening of the bridge. A chargesheet is the prosecution’s case; none of those named had been convicted. The brief also mentions a supplementary chargesheet in March 2023, which could not be verified and is not used here.

Why it matters: A chargesheet sets out what the prosecution will try to prove, not what a court has found.
21-24 Nov
2022

Supreme Court sends the PILs to the High Court; High Court faults the civic body Courts & accountability

14-21 Nov 2022 Supreme Court24 Nov 2022 High Court hearingCivic body prima facie guilty of dereliction

The Supreme Court declined to hear petitions seeking an independent probe and gave the petitioners liberty to approach the Gujarat High Court, which had already taken suo motu cognisance. It called the collapse an “enormous tragedy” and said the High Court could look at accountability of the maintenance agency and compensation for heirs. At a High Court hearing reported on 25 November 2022, the bench said the Morbi civic body was prima facie guilty of dereliction of duty, and the state said disciplinary proceedings against the chief officer had begun.

Why it matters: The courts, not an independent commission, became the main forum for accountability.
3 Nov
2022

Search and rescue called off, toll fixed at 135 Bridge & disaster

3 Nov 2022Announced by Gujarat’s Commissioner of ReliefSonar and underwater cameras usedMore than 50 children among the dead

Search operations were called off on the night of 3 November 2022, five days after the collapse, after officials said all missing persons had been accounted for. The official toll was 135: the bodies of 134 people were recovered and one injured person died in hospital. NDRF, SDRF, fire brigade, Navy, Air Force and Army teams had taken part, and divers and sonar scanned the river. One team each from the fire brigade, SDRF and NDRF stayed at the site. Other counts, up to 141, appear in some sources; the official figure of 135 is used here.

Why it matters: The count of the dead differs between sources; the official figure is the one courts and the state use.
1 Nov
2022

Prime Minister visits; civic chief officer suspended Bridge & disaster

1 Nov 2022PM Narendra Modi at the site and hospitalState ex gratia Rs 4 lakh per deathRs 50,000 for each injured

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Morbi, met officials and the injured, and reviewed the rescue. The state announced Rs 4 lakh for the next of kin of each person who died and Rs 50,000 for each injured person. In the following days the state suspended Morbi municipality’s chief officer, Sandeepsinh Zala, so that the inquiry could proceed fairly; Reuters later reported his suspension as having taken place in November.

Why it matters: Relief was announced within two days, while questions about responsibility were still open.
31 Oct
2022

FIR registered; nine arrested; SIT formed Probe & findings

31 Oct 2022IPC 304, 308, 114Two managers, two ticket clerks, two contractors, three guardsFive-member SIT

Police registered a case under IPC sections 304, 308 and 114 against those responsible for the bridge’s upkeep and management. Nine people were arrested: two managers, two ticket clerks, two repair contractors and three security guards. The Gujarat government formed a five-member special investigation team to establish the cause. The Oreva managing director was not among those first arrested.

Why it matters: The first arrests were of staff and contractors; the senior management question came later.
30 Oct
2022

The bridge collapses at about 6:40 pm: 135 dead Bridge & disaster

Sunday 30 Oct 2022About 18:40 ISTMachchhu River, MorbiMore than 500 people reported on the bridge135 dead, more than 50 children

The suspension bridge gave way on the evening of Sunday 30 October 2022, during a holiday weekend, dropping people into the Machchhu River. Wikipedia reports more than 500 people on the structure against a post-repair capacity of 125, and a toll of at least 141, while the official figure used by the state and courts is 135. Rescuers from the SDRF, NDRF, fire brigade and the armed forces searched through the night. The collapse came four days after the bridge reopened.

Why it matters: The gap between the bridge’s stated capacity and the crowd on it became central to the case.
26 Oct
2022

Bridge reopens to visitors after about six months Bridge & disaster

26 Oct 2022Gujarati New YearNew capacity reported as 125 (earlier limit 15)No fitness certificate reported

The bridge reopened to the public on 26 October 2022 after roughly six months of repairs. Wikipedia gives a new capacity of 125, up from a limit of 15 before the refurbishment. Initial reports said it had no fitness certificate from the municipality, and the chief officer said Oreva reopened it without notice, so no safety audit was done. The later investigation found that no load test had been carried out before reopening.

Why it matters: The reported absence of a fitness report and a load test before reopening is central to the allegations.
A signboard reading Jhulto Pul in Gujarati script with a picture of the bridge on the Machchhu River
The Jhulto Pul signboard at Morbi, photographed in 2008. Photo: Camaal Mustafa Sikan… (Panoramio), CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons (taken in 2008, before the collapse).
7 Mar
2022

Municipality signs a 15-year contract with Ajanta Manufacturing Bridge & disaster

7 Mar 2022Morbi municipality and Ajanta Manufacturing (Oreva Group)Operations and maintenance15 years

On 7 March 2022 Morbi municipality signed a 15-year contract with Ajanta Manufacturing Private Limited, Oreva Group’s flagship company, to operate and maintain the bridge. Investigators later questioned how the agreement was signed and what oversight followed; the preliminary findings said the chief officer had not acted as the law required. Repairs began and the bridge was closed for about six months.

Why it matters: The contract placed operation and maintenance with a private operator; how inspection duties were divided is part of what the case examines.
Looking along the narrow deck of the Morbi suspension bridge between mesh railings over the river
The deck of the Morbi suspension bridge, photographed in 2008. Photo: Camaal Mustafa Sikan… (Panoramio), CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons (taken in 2008, before the collapse).
19th
century

A British-era suspension bridge becomes Morbi’s landmark Bridge & disaster

Local accounts say the 1880s; Hindustan Times says 1887About 230 m long, 1.25 m wideCredited to Maharaja Waghji Thakore

The Jhulto Pul, or hanging bridge, was built over the Machchhu River in the 19th century during British rule. Local accounts date it to the 1880s and credit Maharaja Waghji Thakore; sources vary on the exact year; the Hindustan Times SIT report says 1887, which matches the brief, while Wikipedia says locals date it to the 1880s. It was about 230 metres long and 1.25 metres wide, with a limit of 15 people before the 2022 refurbishment, and it became a popular local attraction.

Why it matters: A heritage landmark still needs modern inspection, a stated capacity and someone accountable for both.
A narrow pedestrian walkway with mesh sides on the Morbi suspension bridge, with a tower and old buildings ahead
The Morbi suspension bridge walkway and tower, photographed in 2008. Photo: Camaal Mustafa Sikan… (Panoramio), CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons (taken in 2008, before the collapse).
Side view of the Morbi suspension bridge with vertical hangers, a mesh-sided deck and a tower over the Machchhu River
The Morbi suspension bridge seen from the river bank, in 2008. Photo: Camaal Mustafa Sikan… (Panoramio), CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons (taken in 2008, before the collapse).
Advertisement
Advertisement

Capacity Versus the Crowd

Capacity versus the crowd on the bridgeNumber of people. Pre-repair limit and post-repair capacity as reported; the crowd figure is a reported minimum.0100200300400500+60015Limit before repairbefore 2022125Capacity after repairas reported500+On the bridgemore than, reportedSource: Wikipedia summary of contemporaneous reports. The Reuters investigation report said far more people were on the bridge than its capacity but gave no number.
The bridge was reported to hold about four times its stated capacity when it gave way.

What Investigators Reported About the Cable

The 49 wires of the upstream main cablePreliminary SIT findings reported by Reuters, 20 February 2023.2227Corroded: may have broken earlierRecently brokenThe finding is preliminary; the full report and the trial court will establish the cause.
More than 40 per cent of the wires were reported corroded before the day of the collapse; the rest were reported broken recently.

The Case at a Glance

Dates and figures as reported; the legal outcome is separate from allegations and findings.

DateEventDetail
7 Mar 2022Contract signed15-year operation and maintenance agreement with Ajanta Manufacturing (Oreva Group)
26 Oct 2022Bridge reopensAfter about six months of repairs; capacity reported as 125
30 Oct 2022CollapseAbout 6:40 pm; 135 dead (official); more than 500 on the bridge (reported)
31 Oct 2022FIR and arrestsNine arrested; IPC 304, 308, 114; five-member SIT formed
3 Nov 2022Search endsToll fixed at 135; 134 bodies recovered, one died in hospital
27 Jan 2023ChargesheetAbout 1,262 pages; ten accused; Patel named tenth
31 Jan 2023Patel surrendersIn custody until 8 Feb 2023
20-22 Feb 2023Findings and compensationReuters reports SIT findings; HC orders Rs 10 lakh per deceased (interim)
Apr 2023Interim paymentOreva deposits Rs 14.62 crore
Dec 2023 / 22 Mar 2024BailHigh Court rejects Patel bail; Supreme Court orders release
17 Oct 2024CBI plea refusedHigh Court declines to transfer the investigation
2025Charges stalledDischarge pleas rejected; High Court stay holds up charge framing (reported)

Reading the Legal Terms

TermMeaningWhy it matters here
FIRFirst Information Report, the police record that starts a criminal caseFiled 31 Oct 2022 under IPC 304, 308, 114
ChargesheetThe police report setting out evidence and the accused after investigationFiled 27 Jan 2023 against ten people; not a finding of guilt
IPC 304Culpable homicide not amounting to murderThe section used; maximum life imprisonment per the prosecutor
IPC 302MurderVictims want this added; no ruling reported
Discharge applicationA plea that the evidence does not justify framing chargesRejected for Patel and co-accused in 2025 (reported)
Framing of chargesThe court formally states the offences the accused will faceReported not done as of Oct 2025 because of a High Court stay
Suo motu PILA public-interest case a court starts on its ownThe Gujarat High Court handles compensation and oversight through one
SITSpecial investigation teamFive members; formed on 31 Oct 2022

What Caused the Morbi Bridge Collapse?

The precise contribution of each factor is for the investigation and the courts. The preliminary findings reported by Reuters, and later reports on the SIT, point to several linked concerns.

The cable. The upstream main cable was reported broken on one side, with 22 of 49 wires corroded and 27 recently broken. Load-bearing cables carry the deck and everyone on it.

The repair. The renovated deck was reported to have old suspenders welded to new ones and aluminium sheets in place of wooden planks. The main cables and suspenders were reported not inspected or replaced, and the repair was reportedly outsourced to a non-competent agency.

No load test. The report said no load or structural test was done before reopening. A test is meant to show a structure can carry its intended load.

The crowd. The bridge was crowded on a holiday weekend, reportedly far above its post-repair capacity. Crowding should not be treated as the sole explanation without the engineering evidence.

Oversight. The owner, civic body, operator, contractor and inspectors each had a part. Investigators said the civic chief officer had not acted as the law required in signing the agreement, and the High Court said the civic body was prima facie guilty of dereliction of duty.

Who Has Been Held Responsible?

Categories examined in the case, not final findings of guilt.

Operator

Ajanta Manufacturing (Oreva Group)

Held the 15-year operation and maintenance contract; its managers are accused in the criminal case.

Civic body

Morbi municipality

Signed the contract; the High Court said it was prima facie guilty of dereliction in Nov 2022.

Civic official

Chief officer Sandeepsinh Zala

Suspended in Nov 2022; investigators said he had not acted as the law required.

Accused

Jaysukh Patel and others

Ten named in the chargesheet; none convicted. Patel is on Supreme Court bail since Mar 2024.

Investigators

Five-member SIT

Formed 31 Oct 2022; preliminary findings reported Feb 2023.

Courts

Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court

The High Court runs a suo motu PIL on relief and oversight; the Supreme Court sent petitions there in Nov 2022.

Rescuers

NDRF, SDRF, fire brigade and armed forces

Searched the river for five days until 3 Nov 2022.

Victims

Families and survivors

Seek stronger charges, a CBI probe and fuller compensation, according to reports.

Aftermath: Compensation, Courts and Accountability

Compensation. The state paid Rs 4 lakh per death and Rs 50,000 per injured person; the Centre and state had together paid Rs 10 lakh per victim by February 2023, when the High Court ordered a further Rs 10 lakh per death and Rs 2 lakh per injured from Oreva. Oreva deposited Rs 14.62 crore in April 2023.

Criminal case. Police filed a chargesheet in January 2023. Bail was granted to several accused, including Patel by the Supreme Court in March 2024. Victims have sought a murder charge under IPC 302 and a CBI inquiry; the High Court declined the CBI request in October 2024.

Civic accountability. The chief officer was suspended in November 2022, and a penalty was reported proposed in September 2025. The High Court called the civic body prima facie guilty of dereliction in November 2022.

Where it stands. The latest reports found say charge framing was held up by a High Court stay in 2025 and that a trial was expected in June 2026. That could not be confirmed, so readers should check the court records before treating any date here as current.

Six Lessons for India’s Infrastructure Safety

1. Independent safety certification matters. A bridge should not reopen merely because repair work has finished; competent technical personnel must assess it.

2. Maintenance must reach structural parts. Cosmetic repairs cannot substitute for inspection of cables, joints, anchors and other load-bearing components.

3. Occupancy limits must be enforceable. Operators need a clear limit, controlled access and the authority to stop entry when the structure is full.

4. Contracts need named accountability. Agreements should say who inspects, who repairs, who tests and who responds in an emergency.

5. Oversight must be documented. Inspection reports, certificates and approvals should be recorded and open to review.

6. Investigations must lead to outcomes. Accountability includes criminal proceedings where warranted, administrative consequences, compensation and steps to prevent recurrence.

The Popular Story vs the Record

Short versions of the story blur several details.

Popular versionWhat the record shows
The bridge was built in 1887The Hindustan Times SIT report says 1887; Wikipedia says locals date it to the 1880s, so the exact year is not settled
The Oreva Group owned the bridgeIt held a 15-year operation and maintenance contract with Morbi municipality, signed 7 Mar 2022
The death toll was 141The official figure is 135; some sources report at least 141
Overcrowding alone caused the collapseThe reported findings also cite a corroded cable, a heavier deck and no load test; courts have not issued a final cause
The managing director was arrested firstNine staff and contractors were arrested on 31 Oct 2022; Patel surrendered on 31 Jan 2023
The accused have been convictedNo conviction is reported; charges had not been framed as of the latest reports found
Search ended on 1 NovemberSearch and rescue was called off on the night of 3 Nov 2022

The Case in Numbers

MeasureFigureSource and caveat
Official deaths135State and courts; some sources say at least 141
Children among the deadMore than 50Tribune; other counts of 47 or 56 appear in earlier reports
People rescuedAbout 170Tribune; other outlets differ
Bridge length and widthAbout 230 m by 1.25 mWikipedia; Reuters gives 233 m
Days from reopening to collapse426 to 30 Oct 2022
ChargesheetAbout 1,262 pages, ten accusedReports, Jan 2023
Interim compensation orderedRs 10 lakh per death, Rs 2 lakh per injuredGujarat High Court, 22 Feb 2023
Total deposited by OrevaRs 14.62 croreReported Apr 2023
Advertisement

Explore More Timelines

People Also Ask

Was the Morbi bridge collapse a natural disaster?
No. Investigators have treated it as an infrastructure and management failure, and police have brought a criminal case against the operator’s managers and others, which is yet to be decided. No natural event caused it, though the bridge was crowded on a holiday weekend.
Who is responsible for the Morbi bridge collapse?
Responsibility is being tested in court. The police case names the operator’s managers and contractors; investigators also said the civic chief officer did not act as the law required. No final finding of guilt has been reported.
How long after reopening did the bridge collapse?
Four days. It reopened on 26 October 2022 and collapsed on 30 October 2022.
Is the Morbi bridge being rebuilt?
No reconstruction was confirmed in the sources reviewed for this page. The site was reported to have been closed after the collapse; check recent local reports for any plan.
What does IPC 304 mean?
It is the Indian Penal Code provision on culpable homicide not amounting to murder, with a maximum of life imprisonment as cited by the prosecutor in 2025 coverage. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has since replaced the IPC for new offences, but this case concerns a 2022 incident.

Frequently Asked Questions

When did the Morbi bridge collapse happen?
The suspension bridge over the Machchhu River in Morbi, Gujarat, collapsed at about 6:40 pm on Sunday 30 October 2022. It had reopened four days earlier, on 26 October, after roughly six months of repair work.
How many people died in the Morbi bridge collapse?
The official toll used by the Gujarat government and the courts is 135, including more than 50 children. Some sources, including Wikipedia, report at least 141 dead, so figures differ; the official figure of 135 is used on this page.
What caused the Morbi bridge collapse?
Courts have not given a final cause. Preliminary findings reported by Reuters cited a corroded main cable (22 of 49 wires), a renovated deck with heavier aluminium sheets, no load test before reopening, far more people than capacity and weak oversight. Legal responsibility is for the trial court to decide.
Who operated the Morbi bridge?
Ajanta Manufacturing Private Limited, the flagship company of the Oreva Group, signed a 15-year operation and maintenance contract with Morbi municipality on 7 March 2022. Its managing director, Jaysukh Patel, is among those accused.
Why was the bridge unsafe if it had just been repaired?
Investigators reported that the main cables were not inspected or replaced, the deck was changed to aluminium sheets, the repair was given to an agency described as non-competent and no load or structural test was done. A repair is not the same as a verified safety assessment.
Did the bridge have a fitness certificate?
Initial reports said the bridge reopened without a fitness certificate from the municipality, and the chief officer said Oreva reopened it without notice, so no safety audit was done. The later investigation reported that no load test had been carried out.
How many people were on the bridge when it collapsed?
Wikipedia reports more than 500 people, against a post-repair capacity of 125. The Reuters report on the investigation said far more people were on the bridge than its capacity but did not give a figure.
Who was arrested after the Morbi bridge collapse?
Nine people were arrested on 31 October 2022: two managers, two ticket clerks, two repair contractors and three security guards. Oreva managing director Jaysukh Patel surrendered on 31 January 2023 after a chargesheet named him as the tenth accused.
What charges were filed?
The FIR cited IPC sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 308 and 114. The January 2023 chargesheet of about 1,262 pages named ten accused under sections 304, 308, 114, 336 and 337. Victims have sought a murder charge under section 302.
Has anyone been convicted?
No conviction has been reported. As of the latest reports found, charges had not been framed because of a High Court stay, and the trial was expected to start in 2026, which could not be confirmed.
Is Jaysukh Patel in jail?
No. The Gujarat High Court rejected his bail plea in December 2023, but the Supreme Court ordered his release on 22 March 2024 and directed bail conditions, including a bar on entering Morbi during the trial.
What compensation was paid to the victims?
The state announced Rs 4 lakh per death and Rs 50,000 per injured. In February 2023 the High Court ordered Oreva to pay Rs 10 lakh per deceased victim and Rs 2 lakh per injured person as interim compensation, and Oreva deposited Rs 14.62 crore in April 2023.
What did the Supreme Court do?
In November 2022 it declined to hear petitions for an independent probe, gave petitioners liberty to approach the Gujarat High Court and called the collapse an enormous tragedy. In March 2024 it ordered Jaysukh Patel’s release on bail.
Did the High Court order a CBI probe?
No. In October 2024 a division bench declined to transfer the investigation to the CBI, saying it could not examine the correctness of an investigation under way. The victims’ plea to add murder charges was also raised in the same proceedings.
What happened to the Morbi civic chief officer?
Sandeepsinh Zala was suspended in November 2022, and Reuters reported that the investigators said he had not acted as the law required in signing the agreement. The Indian Express reported on 16 September 2025 that the state told the High Court a major penalty had been proposed, with the Gujarat Public Service Commission’s agreement; the exact penalty is not confirmed.
What did the special investigation team find?
Reuters reported preliminary findings in February 2023. The five-member team submitted its final report to the High Court on 10 October 2023, and the Hindustan Times reported that it blamed Oreva’s management, including the managing director and two managers, and civic officials who deviated from procedure. The full report itself was not read for this page.
When was the Morbi bridge built?
In the 19th century, during British rule. The Hindustan Times SIT report says 1887; Wikipedia says locals date it to the 1880s and credit Maharaja Waghji Thakore. The exact year is not settled.
How long was the bridge closed for repairs?
About six months, between the repair start in spring 2022 and reopening on 26 October 2022. The maintenance contract itself was signed on 7 March 2022.
Why does the victims’ push for IPC 302 matter?
Section 302 covers murder and section 304 covers culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The choice affects the offence the accused would face if convicted. Victims’ relatives have argued for the stronger charge; the High Court had not been reported to have ruled.
Has the trial started?
Not confirmed. A report from 30 October 2025 said the trial was expected to begin in June 2026, but no later coverage confirming charge framing or the start of the trial was found for this page.
What are the lessons for infrastructure safety?
Reopening should depend on a documented, independent safety assessment including load testing; a stated and enforced occupancy limit; clear duties between owner, operator and inspector; and records that can be reviewed. These are points raised in the investigation, not a ruling.
Where can I check the latest court status?
The Gujarat High Court case-status system at gujarathc-casestatus.nic.in and the Morbi sessions court records give the current position. News reports of hearings can lag behind those orders.

Related AiTimeline Stories

⚠️ Editorial Note

This page separates investigation findings, prosecution allegations and procedural court developments from final findings of guilt. Several details in the original brief were adjusted: the bridge’s year of construction is shown as 1887 per Hindustan Times with the local 1880s dating noted; rescue ended on 3 November 2022 and the Prime Minister’s visit was on 1 November, so the brief’s order was corrected; the SIT’s preliminary findings (Reuters, February 2023) and its later report to the High Court are kept distinct; the brief did not mention the Supreme Court’s March 2024 bail order or the High Court’s October 2024 refusal of a CBI probe, which are added, and its supplementary chargesheet of March 2023 could not be verified and is omitted. The September 2025 civic-officer penalty report (Indian Express, 16 September 2025) and the October 2023 SIT final report (Hindustan Times) were read directly in a browser; the exact penalty is behind a paywall and unconfirmed. The October 2025 High Court deferral comes from a Times of India report that could not be opened and was not found elsewhere. The death toll of 135 is the official figure; some sources report at least 141. The trial’s status after October 2025 could not be confirmed. Check the Gujarat High Court case-status system for current orders.

Advertisement
Sensex Crashes Since 1992: India’s Biggest Falls by Points and Percent 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: A Timeline of Justice, Accountability and Legacy
→
Next Article