Summary
Victims of the 2006 Meerut exhibition fire sought constitutional compensation. The Court upheld the Court Commissioner’s findings of negligence and the allocation of liability at 60% to the organisers and 40% to the State. The organisers could not shift their responsibility for paying visitors’ safety to their contractor. Individual compensation remained to be assessed; a judicial officer at Meerut was to calculate just compensation and report to the Court, which retained the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether constitutional compensation could be pursued against the organisers as well as the State for the fatal exhibition fire.
- Whether the contractor’s engagement, uncertainty about the precise fire cause, or the status of the inquiry report defeated liability.
- How individual compensation was to be assessed after responsibility was apportioned.
Provisions considered
- Articles 21, 32 and 142, Constitution of IndiaConstitutional compensation proceedings and the Court-appointed factual commission supported adjudication of the safety failures and resulting loss of life. (¶¶ 16-22, 43-50)
- Sections 3 and 4, Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005The inspection and corrective-measures framework reinforced the findings of failures by organisers and public authorities. (¶ 35-36)
- Section 54; Rule 47A, Electricity Act, 2003; Indian Electricity Rules, 1956The organisers’ failure to comply with the electrical-use and generating-plant requirements supported their responsibility. (¶ 41-42)
Held
- The public-law compensation authorities extended to serious Article 21 violations involving the State and private organisers. The private character of the organisers did not defeat these proceedings concerning the public-safety failures and loss of life. (¶¶ 16-22, 43)
- The organisers invited visitors and collected entry fees, retaining responsibility for their safety. The work order did not assign fire safety to the contractor, and engagement of an independent contractor would not absolve the organisers of their responsibility to visitors. Their inter se contractual liabilities were not being adjudicated. (¶¶ 24-33, 51)
- The electrical and fire-safety failures justified the findings against the organisers and State officials. The Court upheld the allocation of 60% of liability to the organisers and 40% to the State. (¶¶ 34-43, 55-56)
- The Court-appointed commission derived from Article 142, rather than an executive appointment under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Its report could support this civil compensation adjudication; proof of any criminal offence remained for independent proceedings before the competent court. (¶ 44-50)
- The circumstances supported the inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur despite lack of a conclusive finding of the precise ignition cause. The principle permitted a rebuttable inference from the established circumstances rather than demanding proof of a specific negligent act. (¶ 52-55)
- Each victim’s just compensation required individual assessment using principles applied in motor-accident compensation. Prior disbursements were to be considered, excluding ex gratia payments. No final individual quantum was fixed. (¶ 57-59)
Result
Liability allocation upheld. The Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court was requested to entrust assessment within two weeks to a District Judge or Additional District Judge at Meerut, working exclusively day to day with necessary infrastructure and permissible evidence. The officer was to report to this Court; the matter was listed after four months.