UPHAAR FIRE TRAGEDY: APEX COURT SEEKS REPLY FROM CBI ON OWNER’S APPEAL FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY.

The grievous and horrendous mishap, the ‘Uphaar Cinema Fire’ occurred on 13^th of June 1997 (Friday). It was the screening of the movie Border at the theaters that day, when during the three O’ clock show the fire at Uphaar Cinema started. This tragic event took lives of fifty-nine (59) people, these individuals who were there to enjoy the film died of asphyxiation (suffocation) and there were one hundred three (103) people who were seriously injured due to the sudden rush of individuals running in order to save their lives that resulted in stampede.

The mourning families of the departed as well as the victims of the tragedy formed an association called AVUT ‘The Association of Victims of Uphaar Fire Tragedy’, this filled the landmark civil compensation case. In compensation for the families of the victims, 25 crores were given. In civil compensation law in India this case is considered to be revolutionary.

 The owners of the Ansal Theaters filed a petition seeking custody of the theatre and its grounds, and the Apex Court requested (the Central Bureau of Investigation) CBI’s response orally on Wednesday April 20, 2023.

The bench hearing the session consisted of Justice KM Joseph, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Aravind Kumar.

The senior counsel for Ansal’s argued that even after compensating the victims, the proprietorship of the theater has still not been handed over to the owners. It has been 26 years since then and the theater has been lying unoccupied, he submitted.

The senior attorney representing the AVUT (Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy) made further interventions in the case, and the bench responded by noting that AVUT is not a party to the case and as such, they should not be concerned. The bench said that the nature of the plea is to return the theater and it won’t be affecting AVUT in the slightest way and rather if the theater is given back the said due compensation can be paid off.

The senior attorney for AVUT then reacted by claiming that the issue is of justice and not money, that the manner in which people lost their lives makes it unjust to let the offenders go free while the rest serve their sentences.

In response, the bench remarked that ownership of the property and the conviction of the accused are two distinct things.

 The case was then scheduled for hearing on April 20, 2023.

NAME- PRANJAL JHA, COLLEGE- AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA, SEMESTER- 2^ND

Admin

PDF