“Before drowning, there was a substantial period of time, in which, rescue could have been attempted,” a division bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh said in its March 17 order. The bench was hearing a PIL seeking direction for a court-monitored safety audit in Noida and Greater Noida following Mehta’s death.
Mehta, a 27-year-old software professional, drowned nearly 90 minutes after his car plunged into a waterlogged excavation pit in Noida’s Sector 150 on the night of January 16. He stood atop his sinking car and called for help for over an hour. The police, NDRF, and SDRF personnel reached the spot in time, but could not rescue him.
The bench further directed, “The response is to be filed by an officer not below the rank of gazetted officer. It is also expected that the responses must indicate the steps taken for rescue and also the training received by both the response teams for preparation of emergencies.”
Questioning the response of the rescue and relief forces, the bench stated, “We find that at the time of the incident, there was no shortage of information to the first respondents (state government and Noida) as the distress call was immediately made by the father of the deceased. The recipient of SOS had immediately informed the police and the nearest patrolling team had reached there.”
“It is not in dispute that as per the pleadings set up before us, the expert team of SDRF and NDRF were available at the site. Even though the responses have been filed by the respondents—Authority and the State…till date no response of SDRF and NDRF are filed,” the bench added.
The court also pulled up New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) over its response stating, “We have also perused the counter affidavit filed by the Noida and we find that even though, notices were issued to various erring builders on 06.02.2026 to rectify the defects within three days but counter affidavit is completely silent with regard to what remedial steps were taken and whether Noida had actually verified the remedial steps taken. Furthermore, the affidavit is also silent whether in Noida, there is any nodal officer nominated to deal with emergency situations and to coordinate between various agencies in such emergencies.”
Story continues below this ad
Questioning the Authority further, the bench stated, “The affidavit is also silent as to who was the officer of NOIDA Authority, who had reached the spot, when the entire incident was being broadcasted live. We expect that an affidavit indicating the above should be filed by the next date fixed.”
The court has listed the next hearing for March 20.
What PIL has sought
The PIL has been filed by Himanshu Jaiswal, seeking a comprehensive court-monitored safety audit of all open construction sites, basements, excavations, trenches, and water-logged bodies posing threats to public safety across Noida and Greater Noida, including abandoned, stalled or non-operational projects.
The petitioner further prayed to direct the authorities to complete the said safety audit within a time-bound period to be fixed by the court.
The petition has also requested that an independent high-level court-monitored inquiry be constituted, preferably headed by a retired judge of the high court in a time-bound manner, to inquire into the circumstances leading to Mehta’s death.
Story continues below this ad
The petitioner has prayed for an inquiry to be done on the following aspects:
* prolonged failure of statutory authorities to secure the hazardous site
* omissions and delays on the part of police and rescue agencies; and
* fixing responsibility of all officials and authorities concerned, without confining accountability solely to private builders.
Story continues below this ad
The PIL also requested the court to issue directions to frame, notify, and strictly enforce mandatory safety guidelines for all ongoing and abandoned construction sites. And, to direct the state and authorities to formulate and implement clear standard operating procedures (SOPs) for urban emergencies.
