2006 Meerut fire: SC asks Allahabad HC to nominate judicial officer to determine compensation

The court was hearing a plea by the kin of the victims of the fire that broke out around 5.40 pm on April 10, 2006 – the last day of the India Brand Consumer Show organised by Mrinal Events and Expositions at Victoria Park in Meerut. A total of 65 people died in the fire and more than 160 people were injured.

Uttar Pradesh government appointed retired High Court judge Justice O P Garg to find out, among others, the cause of the fire and determine the liability.

The Commission submitted its report on June 5, 2007, but this was rejected by the Supreme Court, which then appointed Justice S B Sinha (retired) as a one-man Commission, which submitted its report on June 29, 2015.

The report said the organisers were “wholly negligent” as they organised the event without taking due care and caution and “without obtaining the requisite permissions and without complying with the relevant provisions of the statute”.

A copy of the report was also forwarded to the state government, which subsequently told the court about the actions taken according to the findings.

Appearing for the organisers, Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan had earlier contended that it pertained to the private law liability of the organisers and that such liability does not fall within the scope of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Rejecting the argument, the top court had referred to its judgment in the Uphaar fire tragedy case and said it is in “complete agreement with the findings” in that case.

The court had in the Uphaar case said that “where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence”.

“Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right,” it had said in the Uphaar case. “Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered. Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high.”

In the Meerut fire case, the court also rejected the contention that the contractor was responsible and victims should seek compensation from him.

“The victims or their families visited exhibition on the invitation of the organisers and not that of the contractor. The organisers were supposed to make arrangements for putting up the exhibition hall, providing electricity and water and also the food stalls for the facility of the victims/visitors,” it said. “They cannot now take shelter on the ground that the contractor who was given work order on 9.3.2006 was an independent contractor and the victims should seek remedy from him. As observed earlier, the contractor has worked for the organisers and not for the victims. Hence, the organisers alone are responsible to protect the life and liberty of the victims.”

The court upheld the report’s recommendation holding the organisers and the State liable to apportion the liability at 60:40.