A cloud of unanswered questions continues to hang over the death of noted Indian singer Zubeen Garg, even as a coroner’s court in Singapore hears official testimony and forensic details. The inquiry, based on an investigation carried out at the spot by Singapore authorities, has ruled out suicide and coercion. Yet, serious concerns raised by journalists and observers are now sharpening focus on the conduct of those present on the yacht and on the wider administrative response.
According to testimony placed before the court, investigators found no evidence to suggest that Garg had suicidal tendencies. Witnesses told the court that he was not under duress before his death. The official account states that Garg entered the water without wearing a life jacket after removing it, allegedly because it felt oversized. He later drowned near Lazarus Island.
Investigators also placed on record that Garg had consumed alcohol before entering the sea. An autopsy reportedly showed a very high level of alcohol in his blood, far above the legal drink-driving limit. Officials said this level of intoxication could have affected his balance and coordination. The court was told that repeated reminders were given by the yacht captain to wear a life jacket, but Garg did not comply. 
The sequence of events, as described in court, notes that Garg was among around 15 people who had boarded the yacht from Marina at Keppel Bay on the afternoon of September 19, 2025. Several passengers were seen drinking alcohol. The captain later told the inquiry that he noticed Garg consuming alcohol before the incident. When Garg entered the water, he was not wearing a safety jacket, and no immediate physical attempt was made by others on board to restrain or stop him.
While these details form the backbone of the official narrative, sharp questions are now being raised outside the courtroom. Senior journalist Manoj Goswami has publicly questioned whether the investigation has gone far enough. Referring to the report submitted to the court, Goswami said it was the outcome of a detailed on-site investigation by Singapore investigators, but insisted that the story does not end there.
Goswami stated that Garg had no suicidal tendencies and alleged that fourteen people present on the yacht, including Singapore-based residents, forced the singer to consume excessive alcohol. He further claimed that when Garg removed the safety jacket and entered the sea, not a single “friend” present tried to stop him. These assertions, though not reflected in the court’s official findings so far, have sparked public debate and raised uncomfortable questions.
“Think again,” Goswami said, questioning whether the mystery of Garg’s death can be resolved without closely examining the role of certain individuals in Singapore. His remarks have found resonance among fans and sections of the public who believe that moral responsibility cannot be separated from legal conclusions.
It is also important to note that, so far, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed by the Assam CID has not questioned all the people who were present on the yacht at the time of the incident. According to available information, several individuals who were involved in or witnessed the events leading up to Zubeen Garg’s death have not yet been called for questioning. This has raised serious concerns among observers and sections of the public, who believe that without examining every person present on the yacht, the investigation may remain incomplete and key facts could be missed.
At the coroner’s inquiry, the prosecution said there are 35 witnesses in total, with several scheduled to testify. The first witness, an assistant superintendent of police, reiterated that there was no sign of suicide or coercion. The emphasis remained on personal choice, intoxication, and failure to follow safety instructions.
However, critics argue that this narrow framing overlooks key human factors. They ask why no one intervened when an intoxicated man chose to enter open waters. They question whether enough was done to prevent a foreseeable tragedy. In any group setting, especially one involving alcohol and the sea, the duty of care extends beyond issuing verbal reminders, they argue.
There is also growing pressure on the administration to clarify whether all protocols were followed and whether accountability ends with stating facts in court. Was the yacht adequately supervised? Were safety norms enforced strictly enough? Should those present have been questioned more rigorously about their actions and inaction?
