Opinion - Editorials

Enforcing public safety norms

It was a complex web of collusion and callousness that caused the Uphaar tragedy, in which 59 people suffocated to death after a fire broke out in a New Delhi cinema hall. The fire, which broke out during the screening of a film in 1997, was a result of a malfunctioning transformer installed by the Delhi Vidyut board; crucial exits were blocked due to the provision of additional seats; building and fire safety regulations were bent in apparent collusion with the bureaucrac y. The conviction of all 12 accused by a Delhi sessions court in the decade-long case reflects the collective nature of the crime, which amounted to the pursuit of profits even at risk to human lives and involved many players — owners of the cinema hall and officials of the electricity board, the fire service, and the municipal corporation. By holding six government officials guilty, the court has not shied away from affixing responsibility on those who failed in their duty to enforce public safety norms.

The families of the victims, who conducted a brave and relentless campaign to keep the case in public focus, have expressed disappointment with the judgment. This sentiment is largely a result of the court’s decision to convict cinema hall owners Sushil and Gopal Ansal under relatively less severe provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The two brothers were convicted under Section 304-A (causing death due to negligence), which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, but found not guilty under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. As seven other accused, including four employees of the company that owned the cinema hall, were convicted of culpable homicide, the question is why the Ansals were left out. Only a reading of the detailed judgment will clarify the basis on which the court distinguished between the involvement of the brothers and that of some of the other accused in the tragedy; of particular interest will be whether or how much the judge was persuaded by the brothers’ defence that they were not involved in the day-to-day management of the company when the tragedy occurred. The central lesson from the Uphaar tragedy consists in the grievous consequences that could flow from flouting infrastructural public safety norms. As India continues to urbanise rapidly, and often chaotically, this is a lesson that regrettably still remains to be learnt.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu