Uphaar tragedy: What's the status of trauma centre, Supreme Court asks Delhi govt
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
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment
The court observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course The Supreme Court, on August 12, held that where a matrimonial relationship has ended in divorce and both parties have settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution arising from that past relationship should not be allowed to continue as a form of harassment. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Navneesh Aggarwal and his parents against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated August 1, 2024, which had declined to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC by his former wife. The wife had raised no objection to the quashing, and both parties had ended their relationship through divorce by mutual consent, withdrawing all pending cases. The bench said that within the framework of inherent powers, a High Court may quash a criminal proceeding, complaint, or FIR if it is satisfied that, in light of such a settlement, there is little likelihood of conviction and that continuing the proceedings would result in injustice. The court stressed the need to apply the law in a way that addresses genuine grievances while preventing misuse. The judges noted that once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on, continuing criminal proceedings against family members, particularly in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. Such continuation, they said, only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer active. In this case, neither party was interested in pursuing criminal proceedings. The bench invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to advance complete justice, quashing the chargesheet and FIR registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, along with all other criminal proceedings arising from them. The court referred to Dara Lakshmi Narayana v State of Telangana (2025), which held that criminal law is not to be used as a tool of harassment and that judicial scrutiny must guard against such misuse. It also cited Mala Kar v State of Uttarakhand (March 19, 2024) and Arun Jain v State of NCT of Delhi (April 1, 2024), in which it had exercised powers under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes once the parties had divorced, holding that continuation of prosecution in such circumstances amounted to an abuse of process. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, noting that the former wife no longer intended to prosecute the case. It found that continuing the proceedings would only result in harassment to the appellants, given the facts of the matter, and that no useful purpose would be served by taking the case to its conclusion. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on March 6, 2018. About ten months later, the wife left the matrimonial home with her daughter from an earlier marriage. Multiple cases were filed thereafter, including the present FIR. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted by the Family Court on January 19, 2024, and all other pending proceedings initiated by the wife were withdrawn. When the appellants sought quashing of the FIR before the High Court, their plea was dismissed on the ground that certain allegations relating to the victimisation of the child had been sufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court, however, found no justification for continuing the criminal proceedings in view of the mutual settlement, divorce, and the wife's lack of interest in pursuing the matter. tags : divorce marriage supreme court view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 15, 2025, 05:17 IST News india SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC cancels Darshan's bail; actor, main accused held
Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa was arrested in Bengaluru on Thursday, just hours after the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to him by the Karnataka high court in the Renukaswamy murder case. Police took him into custody near his Hosakerehalli residence soon after he returned to the city from an outstation trip. Police arrest actor Pavitra Gowda from her residence after the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to her by the High Court in the Renukaswamy murder case, in Bengaluru on Thursday. (ANI) The apex court's order also covered Darshan's associate Pavithra Gowda and five other accused, all of whom were arrested and will be produced before the trial court in Bengaluru, police said. According to police, Gowda was picked up earlier in the day by the Annapoorneshwari Nagar police. Pradoosh S Rao, Lakshman M, and Nagaraj are among those detained. While cancelling the bail to the actor, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, 'Granting leniency to such persons despite grave charges of conspiracy and murder sends the wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the justice system.' In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the bench said, 'no individual is exempt from legal accountability by virtue of status or social capital'. In the present case, it said, 'By treating A2's (Darshan) stature as a mitigating factor, the high court committed a manifest perversity in the exercise of its discretion, thereby warranting cancellation of bail.' Police officers said a copy of the Supreme Court order was submitted to the trial court to secure arrest warrants for all the accused before their remand to judicial custody. The order follows a special leave petition filed by the state government challenging the high court's decision in December 2024 to grant bail to the accused. Darshan, who had been away when news of the court's decision reached him, was contacted by police and asked to appear before investigators. He complied, arriving in a luxury SUV before switching to another vehicle to avoid the media assembled outside his apartment. He entered the premises through the back door. The murder case, began with Darshan's arrest in June 2024. Police allege he orchestrated the killing of Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, after the victim allegedly stalked and abused Gowda on social media. The actor was detained on June 11, 2024, in Mysuru while filming The Devil and was held in custody for 131 days. He was released on interim bail in October and granted regular bail in December. With the latest court order, Darshan is expected to be shifted to the Ballari Central Prison. He was previously housed there after being moved from the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison when images emerged of him smoking and mingling with high-profile inmates. Following that episode, Ballari prison authorities heightened security measures, including raising the perimeter wall to 25 feet and preparing a secure cell. The measures were taken after fans breached prison boundaries during his earlier detention, police officers said. The Supreme Court's decision comes a day before the scheduled release of the first song from The Devil. The film's team had announced on August 10 that the track 'Idre Nemdiyaag Irbek' (You should live in peace) would be released on Independence Day morning, an event now likely to be overshadowed by the arrest. For Renukaswamy's family, Thursday's ruling was a moment of relief. His father, Shivanagouda, welcomed the decision. 'Darshan's bail has been cancelled. There is an order to arrest him. This brings our faith back…The Supreme Court order reinstates the belief that no one can escape the law,' he said. Chief minister Siddaramaiah's legal advisor AS Ponnanna said the verdict would strengthen the prosecution's case. 'We had feared that the investigation would be hampered because Darshan was out on bail. There was a possibility that he could influence the witnesses while he was out. However, now all these challenges will be resolved with the order given by the Supreme Court,' he said. Soon after the court's order was received on Thursday morning, senior police officials briefed home minister G Parameshwara at the Vidhana Soudha. 'The law is the same for everyone. No one is above the law in the country. Everyone should respect the law of the land. The accused have the opportunity to fight for justice further, and that is also allowed by the law,' Parameshwara said.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Bail on medical grounds meant for emergencies, not for attending social galas: SC
Bengaluru: The Supreme Court observed that actor Darshan, accused number 2 in the Renukaswamy murder case, had obtained bail on misrepresentation of medical grounds. "The bail order dated 13 Dec 2024, passed by the Karnataka high court, was granted primarily on the basis of the alleged urgent medical condition of the 1st respondent/A2. However, a bare perusal of the medical records and subsequent conduct of the accused reveals that the medical plea was misleading, vague, and grossly exaggerated," a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed. Contrary to the impression created before the high court, Darshan made multiple public appearances, including participation in high-profile social events, was seen in fine health and mobility, and did not undergo any surgery or serious medical procedure post his release. This establishes that he abused the liberty of bail, which was obtained on a false and misleading premise, the bench added. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Gold Rates Today in Bengaluru | Silver Rates Today in Bengaluru The Supreme Court consistently held that the bail granted on medical grounds must be based on credible, specific, and urgent need, not on general or future apprehensions, as seen in the State of UP vs Amarmani Tripathi and Dinesh MN vs State of Gujarat cases. The discharge summary dated Nov 28, 2024, issued by the hospital, mentions that Darshan is a patient with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and prior cardiac issues, and that he may require a CABG (coronary artery bypass grafting) surgery in future. However, the report does not indicate any current emergency or need for immediate medical intervention, any life-threatening condition warranting urgent release, or any inability of the prison medical system to manage his current state. Thus, there is no compelling medical necessity for the grant of bail, the bench added. In the Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan case, this court cautioned that "bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where the medical condition is serious, cannot be treated in custody, and necessary facilities are not available in jail." The burden to prove such necessity lies on the accused. In the present case, the accused failed to demonstrate that the jail hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. Instead, the high court proceeded to grant bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency, seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody. This results in a perverse and legally unsustainable bail order, liable to be cancelled as per the principles laid down in Puran and Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee vs State of West Bengal, the top court observed while setting aside the bail granted by the high court single bench judge Justice S Vishwajith Shetty to Darshan. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Independence Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
