AAP has put BJP MLA Anil Sharma in the spotlight by demanding disclosure of PG owners in Satya Niketan.
The political row follows a seven-death collapse that has raised questions over PG safety and MCD enforcement.
The collapse probe is focused on the property, repair work and those linked to its operation, not Sharma.
AAP leaders protested outside BJP MLA Anil Sharma’s residence on Monday, demanding that the Delhi government disclose who owns the paying guest (PG) accommodations operating in Satya Niketan, a day after a building collapse in the area killed seven people.
AAP Delhi chief Saurabh Bharadwaj alleged that influential BJP leaders had invested in properties in the locality and demanded a list of property and PG owners.
The protest has put Sharma at the centre of a political row over PG ownership, regulation and building safety in the student-heavy neighbourhood he represents. The police investigation is focused on the Gupta family linked to the property, repair work carried out before the collapse and possible civic lapses, with three family members arrested and five MCD officials suspended following the collapse.
Why Is AAP Targeting Anil Sharma?
AAP targeted Sharma because he is the BJP MLA from RK Puram, the constituency that includes Satya Niketan. The party’s immediate demand was for transparency over PG ownership in an area where large numbers of Delhi University students live in private accommodation.
The Tribune reported that Bharadwaj alleged influential BJP leaders had invested in properties in Satya Niketan and demanded that ownership details be made public. AAP leaders also questioned whether promised audits of dilapidated buildings had been carried out and demanded accountability from MCD officials responsible for building enforcement.
The broader issue has also prompted action from the government and courts. The Indian Express reported that the Delhi government is preparing a new safety policy for public-use buildings such as PGs and has ordered structural audits of buildings in PG hubs, including Satya Niketan, within a week.
The Delhi High Court has separately questioned the regulatory framework for private PG accommodation. The Indian Express reported that the court said responsibility for student safety could not be confined to building owners and sought information from the MCD and Delhi University on their roles in regulating such accommodation.
What Has The Investigation Found So Far?
The collapsed building, which housed a boys’ PG, had a basement and four floors above ground, according to MCD officials cited by The Indian Express. Repair work was being carried out in the basement before the structure collapsed.
The Indian Express reported that Hariram Gupta, his wife Urmila Gupta and their son Mahesh Gupta were arrested. Police said the property was registered in Urmila Gupta’s name, while electricity connections were in the names of Hariram and Mahesh. Investigators are examining the family's role, the operation of the PG, the construction work and the contractor involved.
According to the same report, the family told police that repairs were undertaken after students complained about seepage caused by waterlogging in the basement. Police are examining whether the work, which included construction activity in the basement, weakened the structure. That remains part of the investigation rather than a final determination of the cause.
The MCD has also faced scrutiny. Five MCD officials, including the South Zone Deputy Commissioner, were suspended following the collapse. The Indian Express reported that officials were examining whether there had been failures in detecting or acting on building violations. The suspensions are administrative action while the inquiry continues.
The scrutiny has now extended beyond Delhi’s immediate regulatory machinery. The Indian Express reported that a Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae has urged an urgent safety audit of PGs, private hostels and other student accommodation in and around Delhi. The amicus noted that Satya Niketan fell outside the areas covered by an earlier Supreme Court-directed inspection.
What Has Anil Sharma Said?
Sharma was at the collapse site during the rescue operation. The New Indian Express reported that he said rescue teams were receiving calls from people trapped under the rubble and were in contact with those inside.
Sharma said the collapse may have been linked to problems during repair work. He said the building was around 40 to 50 years old and that work was being carried out on the ground floor and basement because of dampness. He suggested that one or two load-bearing walls may have been disturbed or removed during alterations and said the builder or property owner should be held responsible.
He also criticised Opposition parties for politicising the incident while rescue operations were under way and said MCD officials should face action if they had failed to enforce safety standards.
Those comments are Sharma’s assessment; investigators have yet to establish the precise cause of the collapse. AAP’s political attack centres on PG ownership, regulation and alleged failures in civic enforcement in Satya Niketan, while the police investigation is examining the property, repair and construction work, the people involved in its operation and possible lapses by authorities.
There is no indication in the available reporting that Sharma owned the collapsed property or was involved in the work under investigation. His role in the controversy stems from AAP’s demands and his position as the BJP MLA representing the area.
