Date of the Judgment: April 12, 2022
Citation: Sanjay Gupta & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors. [2022 INSC 350]
Judges: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Can organizers of a large public event be held liable for a fire tragedy caused by negligence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case stemming from a devastating fire at a consumer show in Meerut. The Court examined the responsibilities of event organizers and the state in ensuring public safety, ultimately holding the organizers primarily liable for the tragic loss of life and injuries. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Case Background
On April 10, 2006, a fire broke out at the India Brand Consumer Show in Victoria Park, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The event was organized by Mrinal Events and Expositions (referred to as “Organizers”). The fire resulted in the deaths of 65 people and caused burn injuries to 161 or more individuals. The event was held after obtaining permission from the college authorities for organizing the exhibition after payment of Rs.40,000/- as license fee. The exhibition was organized by the same organizers after the success of “Build-in-Style” exhibition at Meerut, held on 24, 25 and 26.12.2005 with an object that various brands in the segment of construction materials could get a platform where they could launch or expose their merchandise to a considerable segment or gather information on the prevailing market demographics or even assess and display the acceptability for certain trends.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 24-26, 2005 | “Build-in-Style” exhibition held in Meerut by the same organizers. |
| February 28, 2006 | Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure promulgated in Meerut, effective until April 15, 2006. |
| March 9, 2006 | Organizers appoint Mr. Naresh Garg for construction of the exhibition infrastructure. |
| April 1, 2006 | Organizers submit a request for temporary firefighting arrangements. |
| April 1, 2006 | College authorities grant formal permission and accept deposit of Rs.40,000 from the Organizers. |
| April 6-7, 2006 | Organizers pay advance rental for fire extinguishers. |
| April 6-10, 2006 | India Brand Consumer Show held at Victoria Park, Meerut. |
| April 10, 2006 | Fire breaks out at the India Brand Consumer Show, resulting in numerous casualties. |
| June 2, 2006 | State of Uttar Pradesh appoints Justice O.P. Garg (Retired) as a Commission of Inquiry. |
| June 5, 2007 | Commission of Inquiry submits its report. |
| July 31, 2014 | Supreme Court rejects the report of the Commission of Inquiry and appoints Justice S.B. Sinha (Retired) as a one-man Commission. |
| October 14, 2015 | Organizers file objections to the report. |
| June 29, 2015 | The one-man Commission submits its report. |
| April 26, 2017 | Copy of the report is handed over to the State counsel. |
| April 12, 2022 | Supreme Court delivers judgment holding organizers primarily liable. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the State of Uttar Pradesh appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice O.P. Garg (Retired) to investigate the incident. However, the Supreme Court found the proceedings of this commission unsustainable because the Organizers were not given a proper opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court appointed Justice S.B. Sinha (Retired) as a one-man Commission to conduct a fresh inquiry. The Court directed that the depositions of witnesses from the previous commission would be treated as examination-in-chief and that the Organizers would be allowed to cross-examine them. The Commission submitted its report on June 29, 2015.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 54 of the Electricity Act, 2003: This section regulates the transmission and use of electricity in places where large numbers of people gather. It requires prior notice to the Electrical Inspector and the District Magistrate before using electricity at a rate exceeding 250 watts and 100 volts in such places. The court noted that the organizers failed to comply with this provision.
“Save as otherwise exempted under this Act, no person other than the Central Transmission Utility or a State Transmission Utility, or a licensee shall transmit or use electricity at a rate exceeding two hundred and fifty watts and one hundred volts… in any place, – (i) in which one hundred or more persons are ordinarily likely to be assembled… without giving, before the commencement of transmission or use of electricity, not less than seven days’ notice in writing of his intention to the Electrical Inspector and to the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police…” - Rule 47A of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956: This rule mandates that any consumer or occupier installing a generating plant must give a thirty-day notice to the supplier and the Inspector before commissioning the plant. Additionally, it requires written approval from the Inspector for plants exceeding 10 KW. The court found that the organizers also violated this rule.
“Where any consumer or occupier installs a generating plant, he shall give a thirty days’ notice of his intention to commission the plant to the supplier as well as the Inspector: Provided that no consumer or occupier shall commission his generating plant of a capacity exceeding 10 KW without the approval in writing of the Inspector.” - Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This section allows a Magistrate to issue conditional orders for the removal of nuisances, including structures that are likely to cause injury. The court noted that this section could have been used to direct the removal of the structure if it was raised without permission.
“Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers – (d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary…” - The U.P. Fire Service Act, 1944: This Act deals with the duties and responsibilities of fire officers and the liability of property owners to pay compensation for damages caused by fire due to their negligence. The court observed that the organizers were liable to pay compensation as the fire occurred due to their negligence.
- The Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005: This Act aims to enforce fire prevention and safety measures in buildings and premises. It defines the “occupier” of a building and allows the nominated authority to inspect premises for fire safety compliance. The court determined that the organizers were occupiers under this Act and failed to comply with its provisions.
“The nominated authority may, after giving three hours notice to the occupier or, if there be no occupier, to the owner of any building having such height as may be prescribed or premises, enter and inspect the said building or premises at any time between sunrise and sunset where such inspection appears necessary for ascertaining the adequacy or contravention of fire prevention and fire safety measures…”
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is paramount and that public safety statutes should be interpreted to protect and compensate individuals for losses suffered due to negligence.
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of the Organizers:
- The Organizers argued that their liability was a private law matter and did not fall under the purview of Article 32 of the Constitution. They contended that they had engaged a contractor for the construction and that the contractor was responsible for fire safety measures. They also argued that the word ‘safety’ used in the work order would also include safety from fire as well.
- They submitted that 25 fire extinguishers were provided by the Organizers in view of the request made by the Contractor as he was not locally available and therefore, the same was procured from Meerut with the payment being made by the Organizers to his account.
- They argued that the report has not given any finding regarding negligence of the Organizers, therefore, the apportionment of liability on them is an unjust conclusion drawn by the Commission.
- It was argued that the Organizers had given a turn-key project to the Contractor on 9.3.2006 and the consequences of the tragedy had to be borne by him.
- They also argued that since permission under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted, no separate permission under Section 133 of the Code was required.
- The Organizers contended that the onus of seeking permission under Section 54 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 47A of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 was on the installer of generators, not on them.
- They argued that the Court Commissioner’s report was merely a recommendation and could not be the basis for action against them.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners (Victims):
- The victims argued that the Organizers were negligent in failing to ensure fire safety measures and that the State was also liable for failing to enforce safety regulations.
- They relied on precedents where compensation was awarded in cases of negligence by corporate entities and where liability was apportioned between the State and event organizers.
- They contended that the infringement of Article 21 may be an individual case such as by the State or its functionaries; or by the Organizers and the State ; or by the Organizers themselves have been subject matter of consideration before this Court in a writ petition under Article 32 or before the High Court under Article 226.
- They argued that the appointment of the Court Commissioner by this Court was not made under the Inquiry Act as appointment under the said Act has to be made by the State Government.
Arguments on behalf of the State:
- The State submitted an affidavit disclosing the actions taken against the responsible officials, including lodging of First Information Reports and initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Organizers | Sub-Submissions by Petitioners |
|---|---|---|
| Liability under Article 32 |
|
|
| Responsibility for Fire Safety |
|
|
| Permissions and Compliance |
|
|
| Validity of Court Commissioner’s Report |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the court addressed were:
- Whether the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable against the Organizers for a private law liability.
- Whether the Organizers were negligent in organizing the exhibition and ensuring fire safety measures.
- Whether the Organizers are liable for the acts of omission or commission on the part of the contractor.
- Whether the Organizers failed to comply with the statutory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005.
- Whether the report of the Court Commissioner can form the basis for proceeding against the organizers or the State.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Maintainability of Writ Petition | The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 32 as it involved the violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. The Court distinguished the cases cited by the organizers, stating that those cases did not involve a similar violation of fundamental rights. |
| Negligence of the Organizers | The Court found that the Organizers were negligent in organizing the exhibition without taking adequate safety measures and obtaining the necessary permissions. The Court noted that the Organizers were in control of the event and had a duty of care towards the visitors. |
| Liability for Contractor’s Actions | The Court held that the Organizers could not absolve themselves of liability by claiming that the contractor was responsible. The Court noted that the contractor was working for the Organizers, and the visitors had no contract with the contractor. The Court also noted that the work order did not stipulate that the contractor was responsible for fire safety measures. |
| Compliance with Statutory Provisions | The Court found that the Organizers had violated Section 54 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 47A of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, as well as the Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005. The Court observed that the Organizers had not sought permission under these provisions. |
| Relevance of Court Commissioner’s Report | The Court held that the report of the Court Commissioner was valid and could form the basis for proceeding against the organizers and the State. The Court clarified that the Court Commissioner was not appointed under the Inquiry Act, and the report was not merely a recommendation. The Court emphasized that the appointment of the Court Commissioner was under Article 142 of the Constitution. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors. [ (1993) 2 SCC 746 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Cases involving high handedness on behalf of a public servant and vicarious liability of the State would stand on a different footing. |
| Sube Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. [ (2006) 3 SCC 178 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Cases involving high handedness on behalf of a public servant and vicarious liability of the State would stand on a different footing. |
| Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of India & Anr. [ AIR 1957 SC 529 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The findings in this case are not relevant as it arose in respect of restoration of possession of a house, the title over which was disputed. |
| Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. [ (2009) 5 SCC 616 ] (Radhey Shyam I) | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | This case was a writ petition arising out of a purely civil dispute relating to property. |
| Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. [ (2015) 5 SCC 423 ] (Radhey Shyam II) | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | This case examined whether an order of the Civil Court was amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. |
| Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual & Ors. [ (1969) 1 SCC 585 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | This case involved a writ of mandamus against a company, not a public or statutory duty. |
| Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [ (2010) 8 SCC 329 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | This case challenged an order passed by the Bombay High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. |
| M.C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [ (1987) 1 SCC 395 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case involved oleum gas leakage from a factory, where the Court entertained a writ petition under Article 32 and fixed liability for negligence. It was held that where in enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident. |
| Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. Union of India & Ors. [ 2000 SCC OnLine Del 216 ] | Delhi High Court | Relied Upon | This case involved a fire at Uphaar Theatre, where the High Court entertained a writ petition for compensation for violation of fundamental rights. The High Court held that the private respondents, who were or are owners of Uphaar Cinema were bound to strictly comply with the Rules and Regulations. |
| Green Park Theatres Associated (P) Ltd. v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors. [ (2001) 6 SCC 663 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | The appeal against the order of the High Court was dismissed. |
| Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [CW No. 4567 of 1999 decided on 24.4.2003] | Delhi High Court | Relied Upon | This case involved deviations in the building plans of the Uphaar Theatre. The High Court held that the remedy of damages in public law is available for violation of fundamental rights. |
| Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. [ (2011) 14 SCC 481 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case further elaborated on the compensation to be awarded in public law remedies and the principles for calculating such compensation. The Court held that what can be awarded as compensation by way of public law remedy need not only be a nominal palliative amount, but something more. It can be by way of making monetary amounts for the wrong done or by way of exemplary damages, exclusive of any amount recoverable in a civil action based on tortious liability. |
| Khatri (2) v. State of Bihar [ (1981) 1 SCC 627 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case involved the Bhagalpur Blinded Prisoners case, where liability to compensate for infringement of fundamental rights was raised. |
| Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar & Anr. [ (1983) 4 SCC 141 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case was cited as a precedent where compensation was awarded for violation of fundamental rights by the State. |
| Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J & K & Ors. [ (1985) 4 SCC 677 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case was cited as a precedent where compensation was awarded for violation of fundamental rights by the State. |
| D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [ (1997) 1 SCC 416 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case was cited as a precedent where compensation was awarded for violation of fundamental rights by the State. |
| Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Association v. Union of India & Ors. [ 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 10273 ] | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Relied Upon | This case involved a fire accident where the High Court apportioned liability between the school and the owner of the venue. |
| DAV Managing Committee & Anr. v. Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. [ (2013) 10 SCC 494 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case upheld the High Court’s decision on the apportionment of liability in the Dabwali Fire Tragedy. |
| M.S. Grewal & Anr. v. Deep Chand Sood & Ors. [ (2001) 8 SCC 151 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case involved the drowning of students, where the school management was held liable for negligence. |
| Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors. [ AIR 1958 SC 538 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | This case arose out of a writ petition filed by an aggrieved person against appointment of a commission under the Inquiry Act. |
| State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Anr. [ (1977) 4 SCC 608 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | This case arose out of an original suit filed by the State of Karnataka against Government of India appointing an inquiry commission under the Inquiry Act. |
| T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. [ (2001) 6 SCC 181 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | This case held that civil or criminal courts are not bound by the report or findings of the Commission of Inquiry. |
| Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra [ 1992 Supp (2) SCC 521 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | This case held that the report of the Commission is not relevant to determine the commission of offence tried by the Criminal Court. |
| Haseldine v. C.A. Daw and Son Limited & Ors. [ (1941) 3 All. E. R. 156 (C.A.) ] | Court of Appeal | Distinguished | This case involved a lift collapse, where the responsibility was on the engineer, not the landlord. |
| Green v. Fibreglass Ltd. [ (1958) 2 All. E. R. 521 ] | Court of Appeal | Distinguished | This case involved a fire caused by an independent contractor, where the occupier was not held responsible. |
| Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [ (1974) 1 SCC 690 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case discussed the application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur. The Court observed that the maxim res ipsa loquitor is resorted to when an accident is shown to have occurred and the cause of the accident is primarily within the knowledge of the defendant. |
| Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [ (1977) 2 SCC 745 ] | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon | This case further elaborated on the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The Court held that where the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant, such hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the Organizers were primarily liable for the fire tragedy due to their negligence and failure to comply with statutory requirements. The Court upheld the Court Commissioner’s report, which found the Organizers 60% liable and the State 40% liable for the incident. The Court rejected the Organizers’ arguments that they were not responsible for the actions of the contractor and that their liability was a private matter not falling under Article 32 of the Constitution.
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Organizers’ liability is a private matter not falling under Article 32. | Rejected. The Court held that the violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 makes the matter a public law issue. |
| Contractor was responsible for fire safety. | Rejected. The Court found that the Organizers were ultimately responsible for ensuring the safety of the visitors, and the contractor was working for the Organizers, not the visitors. The work order did not stipulate that the contractor was responsible for fire safety measures. |
| Permission under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was sufficient. | Rejected. The Court held that permission under Section 144 was for maintaining peace and order, while separate permissions were required under Section 133 of the Code and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
| Onus of seeking permission for generators was on the installer. | Rejected. The Court found that the Organizers were responsible for obtaining permissions for the generators, as they were the ones using them. |
| Court Commissioner’s report is merely a recommendation. | Rejected. The Court held that the report was valid and could form the basis for action, as the Court Commissioner was appointed under Article 142 of the Constitution. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- M.C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [ (1987) 1 SCC 395 ]: The Court relied on this case to establish that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities are strictly liable for harm caused due to accidents.
- Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. Union of India & Ors. [ 2000 SCC OnLine Del 216 ]: The Court endorsed the view of the Delhi High Court that writ petitions for claiming damages in public law are maintainable and that the owners of premises are bound to comply with safety regulations.
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. [ (2011) 14 SCC 481 ]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that compensation in public law is not just nominal but can be exemplary, and it is independent of any private law claim.
- Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [ (1974) 1 SCC 690 ] and Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [ (1977) 2 SCC 745 ]: The Court relied on these cases to apply the principle of res ipsa loquitur, stating that the circumstances of the accident implied negligence on the part of the organizers.
- The other cases cited by the Organizers were distinguished, as they were found to be not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The Court observed that “where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right.”
The Court also noted that “the maxim res ipsa loquitur would be applicable as organizing an exhibition of such substantial magnitude without proper and adequate safety factors which may endanger the life of the visitors, has been rightly found by the Court Commissioner , an act of negligence including negligence of the officers of the State.”
The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to take action against the concerned officials for their omissions and commissions. The Court also directed the State to pay compensation to the victims, which would be recovered from the Organizers to the extent of 60% of the liability.
Flowchart of the Decision-Making Process
Fire Incident at Meerut Consumer Show
↓
Initial Inquiry by Justice O.P. Garg Commission
↓
Supreme Court Rejects Initial Inquiry & Appoints Justice S.B. Sinha Commission
↓
Justice S.B. Sinha Commission Submits Report
↓
Supreme Court Hears Arguments
↓
Supreme Court Holds Organizers Primarily Liable
↓
State Ordered to Pay Compensation, Recover 60% from Organizers
↓
Action Directed Against Negligent State Officials
Key Takeaways
- Organizers’ Primary Liability: Event organizers are primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of attendees and cannot shift liability to contractors.
- Compliance with Statutory Provisions: Organizers must strictly adhere to all relevant laws and regulations, including those related to electricity usage and fire safety.
- Public Law Remedy for Fundamental Rights Violation: Violations of the right to life under Article 21 can be addressed through public law remedies, including compensation.
- Duty of Care: Organizers have a duty of care towards the attendees of their events and must take all reasonable measures to prevent harm.
- Res Ipsa Loquitur: The principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied in cases where the circumstances of an accident imply negligence.
- State’s Responsibility: The state also has a responsibility to enforce safety regulations and can be held liable for negligence in this regard.
- Compensation: Compensation awarded in public law can be exemplary and is not limited to nominal amounts.
Implications
This judgment has significant implications for event organizers, emphasizing their responsibility for safety and compliance with regulations. It also highlights the importance of the state’s role in enforcing safety standards. The ruling underscores that the right to life is paramount and that individuals who suffer harm due to negligence are entitled to compensation. This case serves as a strong precedent for holding organizers accountable for ensuring the safety of public events.