(NTI): In a recent adjudication, the Delhi High Court mandated accountability from the Delhi Police and the municipal authorities concerning a tragic episode at Rau IAS Coaching’s basement. While addressing the demise of three scholars, the court queried the detention status of any Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) officials involved. Furthermore, it sought to ascertain whether the implicated MCD personnel had been subject to investigative scrutiny.
The court decreed that the Delhi Police must present a comprehensive report by the subsequent day. Attendance of the MCD Commissioner at the hearing was also mandated. Additionally, the investigating officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) were summoned to court. The court emphasized the necessity of eradicating any illegal encroachments over the drainage system. Senior MCD officials were instructed to conduct on-site inspections personally to initiate remedial actions.
The presiding judge raised several pointed inquiries: “By what authorization was this basement constructed? Which engineer sanctioned it? What provisions were established for water drainage? Will those accountable be allowed to evade repercussions? Who is designated to investigate this matter? Have any MCD officials faced incarceration? The culpability seems to be attributed to a transient vehicle owner. Is this how accountability is determined? It is imperative to ensure that such incidents are not repeated.” The next hearing was scheduled for Friday at 2:30 PM.
The police faced severe censure during the proceedings.
The court highlighted the inadequate drainage infrastructure in Old Rajendra Nagar, attributing unauthorized constructions to collusion with the police. Such constructions, the court noted, could not occur without some level of official complicity. Authorities appeared more interested in deflecting responsibility rather than addressing the issues at hand. The court questioned how such significant water accumulation occurred in the area, pointing out the lack of proper drainage as a fundamental issue. The court inquired if the officials were unaware of these problems when they authorized the building, and why the drains were not operational.
The court posed five critical questions:
- Why has no MCD employee faced job termination following actions against illegal activities?
- Why was only the most junior official suspended, and what about the senior officials who failed in their supervisory duties?
- Why are senior MCD officials not conducting field inspections, especially concerning covered drains?
- How does the city plan to accommodate a population of 33 million, far exceeding the originally planned capacity of 600,000 to 700,000, without upgrading infrastructure?
- Why is there such disorganization regarding the drainage system, with officials unable to plan or locate drains effectively?
The petitioner’s grievances included living conditions resembling a “jungle,” where rules stipulate immediate action against illegal constructions or safety violations, yet irregularities persist. The petitioner called for a high-level investigation, examining the response to complaints and the appointment of officials to handle such issues. The court suggested establishing district-level committees to investigate illegal constructions across Delhi.
The petitioner also highlighted a recent incident where a student died from electrocution, attributing this to ongoing negligence and corruption. They accused the MCD of willfully ignoring safety regulations and called for a committee, led by a retired High Court judge, to oversee investigations across Delhi. The petitioner pointed out the proliferation of illegal PG accommodations, where 50-60 students reside in a single building, with MCD officials allegedly extorting money at every construction phase.
The Delhi government’s legal representative asserted that regulations are in place and efforts are made to adhere to them. They stated that coaching institutes are inspected for fire safety, with actions taken against non-compliant establishments. Notices were issued to 75 institutes, 35 were closed, and 25 sealed, with some relocating. The petitioner countered that these actions were reactionary, following the incident, rather than proactive. Multiple investigation committees had been formed, and their reports were expected to provide further insights, underscoring the shared responsibility in preventing such tragic occurrences.
