The tragic death of acclaimed Assamese singer Zubeen Garg on September 19, 2025, in Singapore has become a subject of intense scrutiny, legal debate, and emotional public discourse. Recent testimonies at a coroner’s inquiry in Singapore have provided clearer official insights into the circumstances surrounding his death, even as a parallel criminal case continues in India.

Incident Overview

Zubeen Garg, 52, was in Singapore to attend the North East India Festival as a cultural ambassador when he took part in a private yacht outing near Lazarus Island on the afternoon of September 19, 2025.

During this outing, Singapore police and eyewitnesses have told the coroner’s court that Garg had been consuming alcohol, including whisky, gin and stout, prior to entering the water.

According to the testimony presented by Assistant Superintendent of Police David Lim of the Police Coast Guard:

●      Garg was “severely intoxicated” at the time of the incident.

●      He initially wore a life jacket but removed it shortly after and later refused to wear another life jacket offered by those present before reentering the water.

●      A toxicology analysis reported that his blood alcohol concentration was around 333 mg per 100 ml of blood, more than four times Singapore’s legal drink-driving limit of 80 mg per 100 ml, a level that would significantly impair coordination and reflexes.

Eyewitnesses further told the court that after entering the sea, Garg swam alone in the direction of Lazarus Island. He later appeared unsteady and floated motionless with his face down in the water, before being pulled back to the yacht. Emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was administered, and he was rushed to Singapore General Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.

Official Findings by Singapore Police

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has indicated that its investigation, conducted under the Singapore Coroners Act, does not currently suspect foul play in Garg’s death. This position was formally stated months ago and reaffirmed leading up to the coroner’s inquiry.

In a December 2025 official statement, the SPF clarified that:

●      Based on investigations so far, there is no indication of criminal violence or external coercion involved in the death.

●      The police have completed preliminary inquiries and will submit findings to the State Coroner, who is overseeing the fact-finding coroner’s inquiry scheduled for January–February 2026.

●      The SPF has urged caution against speculation and the spread of unverified information while investigations conclude.

The Coroner’s Inquiry

Unlike a criminal trial, the coroner’s inquiry is a judicial fact-finding process led by a coroner (a judicial officer) to determine the sequence of events and circumstances leading to a death. It does not itself assign legal culpability but establishes verified facts for the record.

At the January 14, 2026, hearing:

●      Several witness accounts were heard, including testimonies that Garg had consumed significant alcohol before entering the water and was aware of safety instructions regarding life jackets.

●      The court also heard details about Garg’s medical history, including pre-existing hypertension and epilepsy, though it was not established whether these conditions directly contributed to the incident.

Parallel Legal Proceedings in India

While Singapore’s inquiry focuses on establishing the facts around the death, Indian authorities, particularly in Assam, have taken a distinctly different legal route. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Assam Police filed charges in an Indian court, including charges of murder and culpable homicide, against several individuals who were with Garg in Singapore.

The Assam case has generated significant public attention, including debates about the cause and responsibility for Garg’s death. It has prompted appeals for closer monitoring of Singapore proceedings by Indian diplomatic and legal authorities.

Family and Public Response

Garg’s family has expressed concerns and called for transparency in the ongoing legal process. His wife, GarimaSaikia Garg, has urged both the Government of India and the Government of Assam to intervene and ensure that all relevant facts are thoroughly examined and recorded in the Singapore inquiry.

Public discussion around the case has been extensive, reflecting both the artist’s cultural stature in Assam and differing narratives arising from investigations in two jurisdictions.

The opinion

Whether one accepts it or not, the tragedy was the outcome of negligence compounded by accident. Safety norms were ignored, impaired judgment played a role, and basic preventive measures were absent. Tragedies of this nature do not require sensational theories; they demand recognition of human error and institutional lapses.

Yet, instead of allowing facts to guide accountability, political narratives have rushed in to occupy the vacuum. Public grief is being reshaped into political outrage, and sorrow is being repackaged as mobilisation. This does little to honour the deceased and even less to improve safety or responsibility.

Justice is not served by turning every accident into a political spectacle. It is served by enforcing safety standards, demanding responsibility where it is due, and resisting the temptation to exploit emotion for political mileage.