On Thursday, the National Green Tribunal took suo motu cognisance of media reports surrounding the death of Yuvraj Mehta, a 27-year-old techie who drowned after his car plunged into a water-filled pit in Noida’s Sector 150.
The tribunal’s intervention did not stem from a petition or complaint, but from what it described as troubling indications in the public record: “lapse by the Noida Authority in taking up remedial measures which resulted in the death of the person.”
The bench, led by Chairperson Prakash Shrivastava and Expert Member A. Senthil Vel, issued notices to multiple authorities, converting a tragic accident into a legal examination of environmental compliance, civic responsibility, and emergency response.
A Night of Fog, Water, and Missed Decisions
According to accounts placed before the tribunal, Mehta was returning home from Gurugram shortly before midnight. Less than a kilometre from his residence in Sector 150, his Maruti Suzuki Grand Vitara veered off an unlit stretch of road, broke through a damaged boundary wall, and fell into a deep pit filled with water.
Family members say Mehta managed to escape the partially submerged vehicle and climbed onto its roof. There, he reportedly waited for nearly two hours, shouting for help, before succumbing to exhaustion and drowning.
Police personnel were present at the scene but did not enter the water. The station house officer later told investigators that officers hesitated because they believed the pit to be part of an excavation site that might contain submerged iron rods—posing a risk to rescuers.
For the tribunal, this sequence raised a more fundamental question: why such a hazard existed, unguarded and unmarked, on a public roadway in the first place.
Administrative Lapses and Environmental Law
In its order, the tribunal observed that the incident appeared to involve violations of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and raised “substantial issues” regarding compliance with environmental norms and implementation of statutory safeguards.
Notices were issued to the Noida Authority, the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, the Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh, the state’s Environment Department, and the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Each respondent has been directed to file affidavits explaining their role—or lack thereof—in preventing the conditions that led to the fatal accident.
The tribunal made clear that if any authority files a response directly, without routing it through legal counsel, the concerned official must remain virtually present to assist the court.
Accountability After the Fact
Administrative consequences have already begun to unfold. The Uttar Pradesh government removed Noida Authority Chief Executive Officer Lokesh M earlier this week, placing him on a waitlist. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) has also been constituted to probe the incident.
According to officials, the SIT is examining three primary questions: the precise cause of death, individual and institutional responsibility, and measures required to prevent such incidents from recurring. The team is expected to submit its report within days.
For the National Green Tribunal, however, the case goes beyond one accident. By stepping in on its own motion, the court has signalled that urban infrastructure failures—especially those intersecting with environmental compliance—are not merely matters of local administration, but issues of national legal consequence.
As the proceedings move forward, the death of a young professional on a foggy Noida road now stands as a test of whether accountability can travel as quickly as negligence once did.
