Justice Delayed Not Denied

It may have been justice delayed, but at least it was not denied. The Delhi High court has passed a landmark and welcome judgementtoday, disposing a civil case filed by the Association ofVictims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT).  In their 192-page verdict, justice Mukul Mudgal and justice S.KMahajan, based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various accident-related cases, held theerstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), the licensing authorities of the Delhi Police and the MunicipalCorporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Ansals Properties and Clubotel Ltd., equally responsible for the 59 deathsand the injuries to 104 people at the Ansal-owned Uphaar theatre six years ago.

Why is it a landmark judgement? It proves that in spite of all its shortcoming and delays,our judicial system can be made to deliver and not be insensitive, in the face of persistent and painstakinglyorganised civil action, even though it took a long time coming -- 6 years of long, tiring and at timesdramatic court battles between those who flouted public safety rules in search of profit and theadministrative bodies who turned a blind eye to them  on one hand and those who survived the tragedy andthe families of those who didn’t, on the other.

But more than the money, it is the indicting of civil authorities for their negligence andoverlooking of rules of public safety that is significant. In his judgment, Justice Mukul Mudgal said:

"The case highlighted the malice of indifference, sloth and indeed ‘chalta hai’ attitudewhich affected the statutory authorities required to ensure and guarantee public safety. Public trust, hadbeen betrayed by the administrative bodies."

The court directed Ansals, owners of the theatre, MCD, erstwhile DVB and Delhi Police(Licensing) to pay Rs 18 lakh to the next of kin of each of the 34 adults who died in the June 1997 fire. Rs15 lakh are to be paid to the families of 25 other deceased who were less than 20 years of age. Each of the104 people injured while watching the film ‘Border’ in the theatre are to get Rs 1 lakh.

These amounts don’t take into account the huge interest accumulated over nearly six years(nine per cent from the date of filing of the petition to the date of payment of compensation). Besides this,punitive damages of Rs. 2.5 crores have also also imposed against the Ansals for adding extra seats illegallyin the hall. This amount will go for the setting up of a Centralised Accident Trauma Service at New Delhi’sAll India Institute of Medical Sciences.

The total compensation package thus comes to around Rs 21 crore, making it the largestcompensation awarded in India for a civil wrong since Bhopal gas tragedy. Ansals are to  pay 55 per centof it , and the rest is to be contributed by Delhi Police (Licensing), MCD and DVB (15 per cent each).

Originally , the AVUT had demanded a compensation of Rs 122 crores – Rs 30 lakhs for thefamilies of the dead and Rs 2 lakhs to each injured.

This judgement in the Uphaar case can prove to be a precedent in many compensation cases asit widens the scope for holding public authorities liable for exemplary damages, when their negligence costlives of innocent citizens. In many cases, the government authorities pay a sum of Rs 1 to 5 lakhs as a ‘symbolic’compensation.. Those injured only get few thousand rupees. Not that life can ever be measured in money, buthopefully from now on, life of innocent civilians will not be considered that cheap.

The High court has also made several recommendations, based on the Naresh Kumar committee,to avoid incidents like Uphaar tragedy from occurring again. It has directed Delhi administration to providesufficient staff to inspect and enforce safety norms and also decided to take away the licensingresponsibility from the Delhi Police.

This judgment could also influence the verdict of the criminal case filed by AVUT. SushilAnsal, head of the Ansal’s Group, brother Gopal Ansal and 14 others, including government officials, arealso facing trial in a city court for criminal negligence. They are being tried under section 304 (culpablehomicide not amounting to murder), 337 (causing hurt by omission, endangering life and safety) and 338(causing grievous hurt) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Another important dimension to this tragedy isthe role played by AVUT. The tragedy united the families of 59 people killed on that Friday the13th June in 1997. Thefamilies found courage to take on a long legal and emotional battle to take on the civic authorities and theAnsals. 

After the court ruling, the families met at Smriti Upvan , a memorial in front of thetheatre, marked with an inscription that reads "Until justice rolls drown like water and righteousness".And it seems to have. For now. The mood wasemotional as the families considered the verdict as a victory in the first battle; the criminal case being theother tougher one. Neelam and ShekharKrishamurthy, who lost their children, Unnati and Ujjwal, were philosophical: "One can not put a price tag on the lives of one’s loved ones. But unless there is a financialimplication, people fail to take a lesson." 

But has justice really been done? Understandably, thesense of outrage lives on: "Lives cannotbe bought with money. I want to see these people put behind bars. They need to be taught a lesson they willnot forget," said Rachita Sawhney. The defense counsel Rajeev Dhawan, though welcoming the judgement,argues: "If thepurpose of the judgement is to fix responsibilities, then the authorities who were really negligent have notbeen adequately pulled up".

(With inputs from agencies)