Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The tragedy at the Uphaar cinema hall in Delhi evoked the predictable reaction 8212; shock and amazement at how susceptible Indian buildings are to fire. But behind that susceptibility there lies reason for even greater disquiet. In the weeks since the fire, the administration has found it impossible to figure out who should take the blame, and should be made to pay for the enormous loss of life. Should the builders pay, or their stooges who actually ran the cinema hall? Or should it be the arm of the administration which granted them licences without bothering to check the premises? There appears to be no established methodology by which blame can be apportioned and liability fixed. In earlier cases, where commercial complexes were destroyed in blazes, liability was fairly easily fixed: it obviously lay with the builder-cum-operator, who had skimped on the safety measures he had assured. But in cases where complexes are managed by agencies other than the builders, easy answers are hard to come by.
It will take much heavily-argued case law, and possibly even more loss of life, before suitable standards can be evolved in cases like Uphaar. It would be better for the administration itself to lay down the law once and for all, and install fail-safe monitoring systems as well. Right now, it is tacitly assumed that where responsibility is to be borne by any arm of government, appropriate relief8217; from the prime minister8217;s or chief minister8217;s fund constitutes adequate compensation. It may indeed be adequate, but it does not perform a function of reparation payment 8212; it does not penalise the guilty. The injured parties are compensated, but there is nothing to discourage the agencies responsible for an accident to mend their ways, because they are not hurt in any way. A system which can gauge the extent of liability without the need for legal interpretation in every case would see that this very important function is served.
