26 years after deadly Uphaar blaze, court orders desealing of building

After a fire broke out, engulfing the building, on June 13, 1997, an FIR was lodged at the Hauz Khas Police station and the investigation was subsequently transferred to the CBI.

In 2004, the Supreme Court directed the sealing of Uphaar Cinema till the conclusion of the criminal trial. In 2007, the directors of Ansal Theatres and Clubotel, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, were convicted.

The photograph of the worst fire tragedy happened on Friday, 13 June 1997 at Uphaar Cinema, Green Park, Delhi, during the 3-to-6 pm screening of the movie Border. (Express archive photo by Praveen Khanna)

“Since the trial has reached finality, absolutely no purpose would be served to keep the property sealed. The application is thereby allowed and property in question be desealed and released to the applicant being the rightful owner,” said Judge Sanjay Garg of the Patiala House Court on Wednesday.

The court also noted that the stakeholders – the CBI, Delhi Police and Association of Victims of the Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) convener Neelam Krishnamoorthy – had already stated “no objection” to the Supreme Court to allow returning the theatre to its owners.

On April 27 this year, the apex court had allowed the owners of Uphaar Cinema, Ansal Theatres and Clubotels Private Ltd., to move the trial court concerned for the de-sealing of the property.

Stating that they had been dispossessed of Uphaar Cinema since 1997, the owners in their application in the trial court said that “no purpose will be served in depriving the applicant of its property” and that it “was getting wasted”.

59 people died in the fire. (Express archive photo by Praveen Khanna)

The development elicited a sharp response from Krishnamoorthy, who alleged that its owners had “hugely benefited” despite the loss of life in the fire incident.

“The court in its wisdom decides to release Uphaar Cinema. The site is a monument of mass murder and legal battle waged by the victims, proof of a flawed legal system that betrays those seeking justice. Could this not embolden the unscrupulous, to again make it a site of mass murder?” Krishnamoorthy, who lost her two children in the fire, said in a Twitter post.

She had submitted that the applicant had taken loans from public sector banks against the property which should be returned after the de-sealing.

She also registered a complaint against the applicants for tampering with judicial records, stating that they filed a copy of the Supreme Court’s judgment but deliberately omitted some lines to mislead the court. The counsel for the applicants said it wasn’t their motive to file the copy without the bottom lines on two pages, and that this happened inadvertently.

Rejecting the plea raised by Krishnamoorthy, the court held that “concealment of these lines could not have helped the applicant in any way”.