Uphaar tragedy: What's the status of trauma centre, Supreme Court asks Delhi govt
The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi government to respond on implementing a 10-year-old order to establish a trauma centre using ₹ 60 crore paid by the Ansal brothers for their role in the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy that killed 59 people. The Supreme Court of India. (File Photo)
A bench headed by justice Surya Kant passed the order on an application filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT).
The application by AVUT said, 'While about 10 years have elapsed since the stipulated fine amount was deposited (by the Ansal brothers) 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 remain a nonstarter, with no discernable steps having been taken towards its construction.'
As per the Supreme Court order of September 22, 2015, the facility was required to be completed within 2 years in memory of the victims. It was to come up at Dwarka in west Delhi.
The AVUT represented by advocate Diksha Rai told the court that the issue not just highlights the non-compliance of the court order but the larger issue of providing healthcare 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 and Sushil Ansal – guilty of causing death due to negligence for the fire incident of June 13, 1997. By this decision, 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 AVUT has been waging a legal battle against the Ansals and moved this application this year in their pending appeal challenging the Delhi high court order of December 2008 reducing the two-year sentence awarded to Ansals by the trial court 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 high court 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 filed a review petition, that too 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 dedicated in memory of the victims.
Since then, the association had filed several applications under the Right to Information Act to know about the progress of construction 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 healthcare infrastructure,' it added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Shah: Goons don't dictate terms, UP has transformed under Yogi
1 2 Lucknow: Union home minister Amit Shah Sunday said here on Sunday that under the leadership of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath , Uttar Pradesh has shed its legacy of lawlessness and UP has seen a remarkable turnaround. Speaking at an event at the Defence Expo Ground in Lucknow to hand over appointment letters to 60,244 police constables selected in the country's largest-ever police recruitment drive, Shah said: "Goons no longer dictate terms in the state. The rule of law has been established. It is now our mission that within the next five years, we will create a system where an FIR is followed by a verdict from the Supreme Court within three years. " Shah termed the event a "historic ceremony" for Uttar Pradesh Police. Shah praised UP's transparent police recruitment process, and emphasized that no bribes, recommendations, or caste-based bias were involved unlike the previous govts in the state. "Each of you was selected purely on merit from over 48 lakh applications," he told the recruits. Over 12,000 women have joined the force, with Shah commending their confidence and readiness. He also personally handed over appointment letters to 15 constables. He lauded the state's decision to reserve 20% of posts for women, noting that over 12,000 of the recruits were women. "When I met some of the young women today, their confidence and determination were written all over their faces," he said. "Uttar Pradesh now has the largest police force in the country, equipped with command centres, AI-based tools, PCR vans, and on-wheel forensic labs. He urged the new officers to uphold the modern policing ethos of security, service, and sensitivity," he said. Shah credited CM Yogi Adityanath for restoring law and order in UP. "Before 2017, the state's law and order was in decline but since Yogi ji took charge, UP Police has touched new heights," he said. He pointed out that police modernisation in UP was stagnant from 2014 to 2017 but transformed post-2017 with Modi-Yogi governance synergy. Highlighting three new criminal laws, Shah said these reforms would ensure that citizens receive justice from FIR to the Supreme Court within three years. "You are not just joining a force — you're becoming the face of justice, security, and empathy in 'Amrit Kaal'. Be strict with criminals, but a protector to the poor, backward, and tribal communities," he said. A total of 60,244 constables, including 12,048 women, were recruited by the UP Police recruitment and promotion board (UPPRPB), which received more than 48 lakh applications. The recruitment process was completed under the then director of UPPRPB Rajeev Krishna, who is currently the director general of police. With the Sunday's inductions, the total strength of the force now reached nearly four lakh personnel, which includes around 36,000 women personnel. This strength covers all non-gazetted ranks across various wings of the police, excluding home guards, and marks a significant push toward modernising the police force, a senior police officer added.
NDTV
8 hours ago
- NDTV
Cops Firing Upon Car Driver In Plain Clothes Not Official Duty: Supreme Court
New Delhi: The conduct of police personnel surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant cannot be considered under duties of public order or effecting lawful arrest, the Supreme Court has said, dismissing a plea of nine Punjab cops to quash murder charges against them in an alleged fake encounter case. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also restored the destruction of evidence charge levelled on Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Parampal Singh for directing the removal of the number plate of the car after the firing incident in 2015 in which a driver was killed. It has been held that the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice, the court observed noting that prior sanction was not required to prosecute the DCP and other police personnel for their alleged actions. The bench in its April 29 order uploaded recently dismissed the appeals of nine police personnel challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of May 20, 2019, where it refused to quash the case against them. The apex court said having gone through the material placed on record, the court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the high court. The bench rejected the submission of eight police personnel that cognisance of complaint against them cannot be taken as it was barred under Section 197 of CrPC under which prior permission was needed to prosecute public servants. "Equally untenable is the submission that cognisance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners stand accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant. "Such conduct, by its very nature, bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest," it said. The bench further said, "The availability of official firearms, or even an erroneous official objective cannot transmute acts wholly outside the colour of authority into those done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty." Dealing with the case involving DCP Parampal Singh, the bench said an act that is per se directed to erasing potential evidence, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona-fide police duty. "The test consistently applied by this court is whether the impugned act bears a direct and inseparable nexus to official functions. "We believe that where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record. In such a situation the bar of section 197 CrPC is not attracted, and sanction is not a condition precedent to cognisance," the bench said. It said this court in a verdict of 2000 while dealing with Section 197 of CrPC held that "the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice". The top court said the criminal complaint alleges, in clear and specific terms, that the nine policemen surrounded the Hyundai i-20 car, alighted with firearms, and fired in concert, fatally injuring the occupant. It added that the narrative was supported, at least prima facie, by two eye-witness depositions recorded under Section 200 CrPC during the preliminary inquiry. "In addition, the Special Investigation Team constituted at the behest of senior police administrators, found the self-defence version subsequently projected in be false and recommended prosecution of eight of the petitioners for culpable homicide. "A CCTV clip recovered by the SIT depicts the three police vehicles converging on the i-20 exactly as alleged. Taken together, these materials furnish a coherent evidentiary thread sufficient, at the threshold, to justify summoning and the framing of charges," the top court said. Justice Nath, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench said the order of the magistrate summoning the policemen and the subsequent order of the Sessions Court framing charges proceed on an appreciation that there exists prima facie evidence of concerted firearm assault. "No error of law or perversity of approach is shown," the bench said and dismissed the appeal filed by the policemen. The top court, however, allowed the appeal of complainant Princepal Singh seeking reversal of the high court's order of May 20, 2019, by which it had quashed a criminal complaint and the summoning order against DCP Parampal Singh in the destruction of evidence case against him. The bench said, "In our considered opinion, at the summoning stage, those two depositions, read with the detailed narrative in the complaint, furnish a legally sufficient basis to proceed. Their credibility is a matter for trial, not for preliminary scrutiny." As per the complaint, at 6.30 pm, on June 16, 2015, a police party, travelling in a Bolero jeep, an Innova and a Verna, intercepted a white Hyundai i-20 on the Verka-Batala Road in Amritsar of Punjab. It said nine policemen alighted in plain clothes and, after a brief exhortation, opened fire from pistols and assault rifles at close range, killing the car driver, Mukhjit Singh @ Mukha. The complainant (then riding a motorcycle nearby) and another witness claim to have seen the shooting and to have raised an alarm that drew local residents to the spot. They claimed shortly after the firing incident, DCP Parampal Singh arrived with additional force, cordoned off the scene and directed the removal of the car's registration plates.
News18
10 hours ago
- News18
Cops In Plainclothes Firing Upon Car Driver Not Part Of Official Duty: Supreme Court
Last Updated: The court made the observation while dismissing the plea of nine Punjab police personnel seeking to quash murder charges in an alleged 2015 fake encounter case. The Supreme Court ruled that the conduct of police personnel surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and firing upon its occupant cannot be considered part of official duties related to maintaining public order or carrying out a lawful arrest. The court made the observation while dismissing the plea of nine Punjab police personnel seeking to quash murder charges in an alleged 2015 fake encounter case. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also reinstated the charge of destruction of evidence against then-Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Parampal Singh for allegedly ordering the removal of the car's number plate following the incident. 'It has been held that the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice," the court said, adding that prior sanction was not required to prosecute the accused police officials, including the DCP. The Supreme Court's April 29 order, recently uploaded on its website, upheld a May 20, 2019 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had refused to quash the case against the nine accused personnel. Rejecting the argument that the complaint was barred under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)—which requires prior sanction for prosecuting public servants—the court said such protection was not applicable in this case. 'Equally untenable is the submission that cognisance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners stand accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant. Such conduct, by its very nature, bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest," the bench said. In the case of DCP Parampal Singh, the court said the alleged act of removing the vehicle's registration plate—if proven—was clearly aimed at suppressing evidence and could not be reasonably linked to any bona fide police function. 'Where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record," it said. The criminal complaint in the case stated that on June 16, 2015, around 6:30 PM, a police team in plain clothes intercepted a white Hyundai i-20 on Verka-Batala Road in Amritsar. The team, travelling in a Bolero, an Innova, and a Verna, allegedly opened fire at close range, killing the driver, Mukhjit Singh alias Mukha. The complaint further alleged that the firing was witnessed by two people, including the complainant, who was passing by on a motorcycle. Their statements were recorded under Section 200 CrPC during a preliminary inquiry. A Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted at the behest of senior police officials, reportedly found the self-defence claim mentioned in the FIR to be false. The SIT recommended the prosecution of eight officers for culpable homicide and recovered CCTV footage showing the police vehicles converging on the i-20, corroborating the sequence of events. Justice Nath, writing the judgment for the bench, said the orders of the magistrate summoning the policemen and the subsequent framing of charges by the sessions court were based on a prima facie assessment of concerted firearm assault. 'No error of law or perversity of approach is shown," the court held, while dismissing the appeals filed by the accused police personnel. In a parallel development, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal by complainant Princepal Singh, challenging the High Court's decision to quash the complaint and summoning order against DCP Parampal Singh in the evidence tampering case.
