Uphaar Cinema tragedy: SC issues notice to Delhi govt on status of trauma centre

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Delhi government on the implementation of its decade-old order of developing a trauma centre in memory of the 59 victims of the Uphaar Cinema fire in June 1997.

In September 2015, the top court ordered that the trauma centre be built using the ₹60 crore paid as compensationby Ansal brothers, the owners of Uphaar Cinema.

On Wednesday, a bench headed by justice Surya Kant passed the order on an application filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT). The association informed the court about its order of September 22, 2015 by which the trauma facility was required to be completed within two years.

The AVUT, represented by advocate Diksha Rai, told the court that the issue not only highlights the non-compliance of the court order but also the larger issue of providing health care infrastructure.

The bench, also comprising justice N Kotiswar Singh, said, “What is the status of the trauma centre? Who is appearing for Delhi government?” On Rai’s request, the court added the Delhi government as a party to the proceedings and issued notice seeking a response before the matter is next heard in July.

The top court’s judgment of September 2015 held the Ansal brothers, Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal, guilty of causing death due to negligence for the tragedy which took place on June 13, 1997. A three-judge bench sentenced them to two years’ imprisonment with a rider that in lieu of the one-year sentence they had to further undergo, the same shall be substituted with a fine of ₹60 crore to be equally apportioned between the two brothers. The trauma facility was to come up at Dwarka in west Delhi.

The application by AVUT said, “While about 10 years have elapsed since the stipulated fine amount was deposited with the office of the chief secretary, government of NCT of Delhi on November 9, 2015, the trauma centre envisaged in this court’s directions remains a non-starter, with no discernable steps having been taken towards its construction.”

The AVUT has been waging a legal battle against the Ansals, and moved the aforesaid application this year in their pending appeal against a December 2008 Delhi high court order reducing the two-year sentence awarded to the Ansals to one year. The duo was convicted under sections 304-A (causing death due to negligence), 337 (endangering life), and 338 (causing grievous hurt) among other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Initially, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard the appeal, and on March 5, 2014 delivered a split verdict. While one judge affirmed the HC order, the other judge was of the view that the sentence be enhanced to the maximum of two years’ rigorous imprisonment, but went on to add that the enhanced jail sentence of one year will be substituted with an exemplary fine of ₹100 crore. Due to the difference of opinion, the matter went to a three-judge bench which reduced the fine to ₹60 crore, to be shared equally by the Ansal brothers.

Later, the association had filed a review petition which was dismissed by the top court in February 2017. However, the court reiterated that the money should be utilised for construction of a trauma hospital in memory of the victims.

Since then, the association has filed several applications under the Right to Information Act to know about the progress of construction of the trauma centre, and even wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India in 2021 to ensure the order of the court is implemented.

“There is no discernible progress in identification or allotment of a site suitable for construction of the trauma centre, commencement of construction, or utilization of the fine amount lying in the government treasury towards the purpose envisaged in this court’s specific directive,” the application said.

“The funds allocated for the trauma centre continue to remain unutilized, and the proposed facility remains a mere concept on paper. The continued inaction and lethargy exhibited by the concerned authorities, despite the clear mandate of this court, reflects an alarming disregard not only towards judicial directions, but also towards the need for improved health care infrastructure,” it added.