Uphaar Tragedy: SC Sentences Gopal Ansal To 1-Year Jail

The Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on pleas seeking review of the 2015 order in the Uphaar fire tragedy case, sentencing the owner Gopal Ansal to jail for a year and ordering him to undergo remaining seven months as well. The SC, however gave relief to elder brother Sushil Ansal considering his advanced age by giving him the jail term already undergone by him, including the remission, in the case.

The apex court, in a majority verdict of 2:1, asked Gopal Ansal to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining jail term of the one year punishment.

The majority verdict pronounced by Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Kurian Joseph said that fine of Rs 30 crore each imposed on Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal by the apex court earlier was "not excessive".

However, the victims' families have expressed disappointment over the verdict, claiming the sentence to be inadequate after 20 years wait. 

CBI and Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) had sought review of the apex court verdict, delivered on August 19, 2015, sending Ansal brothers to two years rigorous jail term if they fail to pay Rs 30 crore each within three months. The convicts have already paid the fine.

A three-judge bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel which had reserved the judgement on the review pleas after hearing lengthy arguments, advanced by counsel for CBI, AVUT and Ansal brothers is likely to pronounce its verdict.

Fifty nine people had died of asphyxia when a fire broke out during the screening of Bollywood movie "Border" in Uphaar theatre in Green Park area of South Delhi on June 13, 1997. Over 100 were also injured in the subsequent stampede.

The apex court had on December 5 asked the Ansal brothers not to leave India till it disposes of the review pleas after AVUT cited a media report about their possibility of leaving the country in the absence of a restraint order from it.

AVUT, through its President Neelam Krishnamoorthy, who had lost her two teenaged children in the blaze, had cited a media report that the convicts were "on the verge of fleeing the country".

The victims' body had also mentioned the review plea for urgent hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur who said a new bench would be constituted to hear the review petitions filed by CBI and the association.

Prior to that, a bench headed by Justice A R Dave, now retired, had decided to hear in open court the petitions filed by CBI and AVUT seeking review of the 2015 verdict.

Following the judgement, Sushil and Gopal Ansal had deposited Rs 30 crore each to avoid the jail term.

In its review plea, AVUT had said the apex court judgement "bestows an unwarranted leniency on convicts whose conviction in the most heinous of offences has been upheld by all courts including this court and sentences imposed on them have been substituted with fine without assigning any reason".  The plea of AVUT further said, "The sentences of the convicts have been reduced to the period undergone without taking into account the gravity of their offence."

CBI, in its review plea, had said the apex court did not give it time to put its views forth which resulted in "miscarriage of justice".

The agency has said, "Due to the paucity of time on the day on which this case was heard, the prosecution could not adequately put across the reasons why this court should not substitute jail sentence with a monetary fine.

"This petition also seeks to raise issue of an apparent error of law in the judgement and order of this court which has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice," it said.

CBI had also claimed that "callousness" of the Ansal brothers led to 59 people being trapped and suffocated to death in the theatre.

The apex court had on August 19, 2015 sent the Ansal brothers to two years rigorous jail term if they failed to pay Rs 30 crore each within three months.

In a judgement on September 23, 2015, the bench had said the "magnitude" of the case "calls for a higher sentence" but the court has to limit itself to the choice available under the law.

(With inputs from PTI)