SC asks Uphaar victims’ body to inspect centres funded by fines

The 2015 directive specifically called for setting up a trauma centre “at a suitable location in Dwarka.”

The Supreme Court on Tuesday instructed the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) to assess whether three trauma centers, partially funded by a ₹60 crore penalty from Uphaar cinema owners, require further improvements. The directive came during a hearing on AVUT’s petition alleging non-compliance with the court’s September 2015 order, which mandated the creation of a trauma facility in memory of the 59 victims of the 1997 fire.

(Shutterstock)

A bench of the top court suggested that the petitioners’ association visit the facilities and recommend enhancements. “You can visit these trauma centres and find out whether they are functioning properly, do they have enough facilities to deal with a crisis, do they have sufficient ambulance facility and beds to take up emergency cases,” the bench said.

To be sure, the court’s 2015 judgment held real estate magnates Gopal and Sushil Ansal guilty of causing death by negligence (IPC Section 304-A) for the fire on June 13, 1997. The Ansals, who had already served a one-year sentence, were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The court allowed them to substitute the remaining one-year sentence with a fine of ₹60 crore, to be used for building a trauma care facility.

The hearing revealed a significant deviation from the original court order. The 2015 directive specifically called for setting up a trauma center “at a suitable location in Dwarka.” However, the Delhi government, represented by additional solicitor general (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave, informed the court that at the time, there was no existing Delhi government hospital in Dwarka to host such a facility. She added that a full-fledged hospital is now operational in the area.

Instead, the ₹60 crore fine was utilized as part of the funding for three trauma centers across Delhi, including Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri (total project cost: over ₹117 crore), Satyawadi Raja Harish Chander Hospital, Narela (total project cost: ₹244 crore), and a hospital with a trauma center at Siraspur (total project cost: ₹487 crore).

The court noted the shift in location, stating, “They thought of Dwarka because it is not that well connected with the city. Now they have used ₹60 crore in three hospital projects which are also situated in places which are far away from the city.”

Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, representing AVUT, argued that the petition sought strict compliance with the 2015 order. He highlighted a critical unmet condition: the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board was to provide 5 acres of land for the trauma facility. “The accused have got the benefit of a reduced sentence but no land has been given till date and no construction has taken place,” Mehta contended.

He raised serious concerns about transparency, stating, “The amount of ₹60 crore has gone into a black hole. It cannot be known whether it has actually gone in and how it has been used.” This points to a gap in reportage, as no detailed public accounting specifies how the fine was allocated within the three larger projects.

The court, however, dismissed this concern, asserting that accountability rests with government audit mechanisms. “Is accountability the job of the court or the comptroller general? The Delhi government has received the amount and the same has been spent. What else remains. Their accounts are regularly audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG),” the bench said.

AVUT’s plea, filed through advocate Diksha Rai, alleged a decade of inaction. “The funds allocated for the trauma centre continue to remain unutilized, and the proposed facility remains a mere concept on paper,” the plea stated, adding that RTI applications yielded no response.

The Delhi government disclosed that work on the three projects commenced in 2020, with completion targets between December 2025 and June 2026. This five-year gap between receiving the funds in November 2015 and the start of construction remains a point of contention, with the government providing no explanation for the delay during the hearing.

The court urged a practical approach, telling Mehta, “Do you think ₹60 crore is enough for getting 6 acres land... Let us not convert this into an adversarial litigation.”