Uphaar fire tragedy: 28 years on, families still miss loved ones, demand accountability
The memorial, organised by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy , saw grieving families, friends, and supporters streaming to the south Delhi area to remember their loved ones.
There were prayers, moments of silence, emotional recollections, and a renewed appeal for justice and accountability, AVUT, in a statement, said.
"It has been 28 years, and we are still waiting for answers, for closure, for justice that feels complete," said Neelam Krishnamoorthy, president of AVUT, who lost her two teenage children in the fire.
"Every year we come here not just to mourn, but to remind the system that such a tragedy must never happen again," she said.
In 1997, a fire broke out during a screening of the film Border at the Uphaar cinema hall. Locked exits and a delayed rescue led to dozens of people getting trapped inside, many of them young.
AVUT has since fought a legal battle to hold those responsible to account.
The fight revealed major gaps in the cinema halls' safety apparatus, such as the lack of emergency preparedness and a trauma centre in Delhi.
The setting up of Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, which has been functioning for 18 years, is a result of that legal battle.
The Supreme Court in 2015 imposed a ₹60 crore fine on the Ansal brothers, the owners of the theatre, instead of a jail term. The amount was meant to fund another trauma centre, an extension of AIIMS in Dwarka, but that project is still pending, according to the statement.
"It is heartbreaking to see something so critical stuck in limbo. Lives depend on it," Krishnamoorthy said.
As they lit candles and laid flowers, families said they would keep returning to this place until the system changes, and until public safety becomes more than just a promise.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
07-08-2025
- Time of India
Passport case against businessman Sushil Ansal: Delhi court allows AVUT to assist prosecution
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has allowed the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) to assist the prosecution in a fraud case against businessman Sushil Ansal. Ansal was convicted in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire , which killed 59 people. The AVUTs chairperson, Neelam Krishnamoorthy, had filed an application to assist the prosecution in the case, raising certain objections in the investigation and filing of the chargesheet. Ansal was booked by Delhi Police's crime branch in 2019 under Section 12 of the Passport Act, which deals with obtaining a passport by suppressing information about nationality. The FIR was also registered under IPC Sections 177 (knowingly furnishing false information to a public servant) and 181 (false statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorised to administer oath) 192 (fabricating false evidence), 197 (issuing or signing false certificate) and 420 (cheating). In an order on August 4, chief judicial magistrate Shriya Agarwal said, "The Association at the instance of which the law was set into motion in the present case ought to get a right of assisting the prosecution, to which there is no bar in law." AVUT, the judge said, was at liberty to assist the prosecution in the present case and no prejudice would be caused to the accused. Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said the present case was registered through a Delhi High Court order in a writ petition filed by AVUT, and so effective right of participation could be given to the association. Earlier, in its 8-page final report, police claimed Ansal misled the government authority on oath that he has not been convicted in any criminal proceedings by any court. The case was lodged on the direction of the Delhi High Court while hearing a petition by Krishnamoorthy, alleging that Ansal concealed or gave false information to the authorities for renewal of his passport. Ansal, however, surrendered his passport on August 14, 2017 "because he knew that adverse orders against him may well be passed", the final report said. Krishnamoorthy, who lost two children in the tragedy, has been fighting a legal battle on behalf of the victims' families for over two decades. Rules stipulate for a new or a re-issue or a replacement of lost or damaged passport issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, the applicant has to disclose whether he is involved in any criminal case or not and to produce an no-objection certificate from the court concerned in case they are involved in any criminal prosecution. A fire at the Uphaar cinema during the screening of Hindi film 'Border' on June 13, 1997 had claimed 59 lives.
New Indian Express
07-08-2025
- New Indian Express
Passport case against Sushil Ansal: Court allows victims' body to aid prosecution
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has permitted the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) to assist the prosecution in a fraud case involving businessman Sushil Ansal, convicted in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire that killed 59 people. The order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Shriya Agarwal on August 4, following an application filed by AVUT chairperson Neelam Krishnamoorthy, who raised concerns over the investigation and the filing of the chargesheet in the case. Ansal was booked by Delhi Police's crime branch in 2019 for allegedly suppressing information while seeking renewal of his passport. He was charged under Section 12 of the Passport Act and IPC sections 177 (furnishing false information), 181 (false statement on oath), 192 (fabricating false evidence), 197 (false certificate), and 420 (cheating). The case was registered based on directions from the Delhi High Court while hearing a writ petition filed by AVUT. 'The Association at the instance of which the law was set into motion in the present case ought to get a right of assisting the prosecution, to which there is no bar in law,' the judge said, adding that AVUT was free to aid the prosecution and that such assistance would not prejudice the accused. Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa noted that the case stemmed from a writ petition filed by AVUT, making a strong case for their active involvement. In its final report, police claimed that Ansal misled authorities under oath by declaring he had not been convicted in any criminal proceedings. The report added that he surrendered his passport on August 14, 2017, 'because he knew that adverse orders against him may well be passed'. Krishnamoorthy, who lost her two children in the fire, has continued to fight for justice on behalf of the victims for more than two decades.
Hindustan Times
06-08-2025
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court allows Uphaar victims to assist police in prosecuting realtor in passport renewal case
NEW DELHI A Delhi court has allowed 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy victims to assist the Delhi Police in prosecuting realtor Sushil Ansal in a case accusing him of fraudulently getting his passport renewed. (Shutterstock) A Delhi court has allowed 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy victims to assist the Delhi Police in prosecuting realtor Sushil Ansal in a case accusing him of fraudulently getting his passport renewed. The order was passed by chief judicial magistrate Shriya Agrawal of the Patiala House Court on Monday, allowing a plea moved by Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows a court to grant permission—other than to a police officer below the rank of Inspector— to conduct the prosecution in a case. The section essentially ensures that a complainant could participate in the prosecution through their counsel and assist the prosecutor, representing the police. The court said, '…it is observed that the association at the instance of which, the law was set into motion in the present case ought to get a right of assisting the prosecution, to which liberty, there is no bar in law…as opposed to being given the reigns of the prosecution itself, the Association is at liberty to assist the prosecution in the present case'. Sushil Ansal, 77, one of the convicts in the case pertaining to the Uphaar fire mishap, is also accused of getting his passport renewed by concealing his criminal antecedents and not obtaining the requisite no-objection certificate from the court. Following a writ petition filed by AVUT in the Delhi High Court, a case of cheating was lodged by the Delhi Police Crime Branch in 2019. In November 2007, a decade after the tragedy that killed 59 people, a trial court convicted realty tycoons Gopal Ansal and his brother Sushil Ansal, among others, and sentenced them to two years in prison, the maximum sentence the law provides for causing death due to negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In December 2008, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year. In February 2017, the Supreme Court directed the two of them to pay a fine of ₹30 crore each, for the construction of a trauma centre. While Sushil, who spent a little over five months in jail, was let off for the period already served on account of his age (then 77), then 68-year-old Gopal Ansal was directed to undergo one year of imprisonment. In July 2022, a Delhi court convicted the brothers in another case pertaining to the fire, related to tampering with and destroying evidence. The brothers were let off by the court in the case for the period already served by them during the pendency of the case. The case pertaining to passport forgery, where only Sushil Ansal stands as an accused, is currently at the stage of arguments on framing of charges at the Patiala House Courts. In its plea, AVUT, led by Neelam Krishnamoorthy, who lost her two children in the tragedy, represented by senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, highlighted that the victims had been at the forefront of the battle for justice and had closely tracked and assisted all hearings in the previous two cases against the Ansals. The plea also pointed out several grievances in the Delhi Police's investigation and filing of the charge sheet. Meanwhile, Sushil, through his Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, opposed the plea, stating that AVUT had no locus standi to address arguments on charge and prosecute Ansal as they were mere complainants.
