2019 Anaj Mandi fire: HC upholds framing of charges against building owner

The Delhi High Court has refused to discharge one of the owners of the ill-fated building in Sadar Bazar’s Anaj Mandi area where a devastating fire in December 2019 claimed 45 lives, most of them migrant labourers.

In a strongly-worded order, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the decision of a trial court to frame charges against Mohd Imran, noting his “active participation” in maintaining and profiting from an unauthorised, dangerously constructed premises, despite earlier warnings and a prior fire incident.

Imran, who owned a portion of the fourth floor as well as a storeroom constructed illegally on the terrace, had sought discharge on the basis that the short circuit that triggered the fire took place on a different floor, one he did not control.

However, the court rejected this argument, observing that his ownership of multiple parts of the building, daily presence on site, role in subletting spaces for commercial gain and failure to rectify known safety issues collectively established his complicity.

“The petitioner’s actions demonstrate not merely negligence, but reckless indifference to human life,” the court said, while pointing to previous warnings issued by tenants and a fire that broke out in the building in March 2019, months before the fatal incident.

The court further highlighted how the building, erected with the help of garters and tukdiyas, unauthorised construction elements, lacked mandatory fire safety clearances, proper ventilation or any emergency exit provisions. Portions owned by Imran also had no firefighting mechanisms installed, despite the building being used for intense commercial activities.

Justice Sharma remarked that the lack of concern for fire hazards was compounded by the fact that staircases, the primary escape route, were blocked with stored, often inflammable, material. “These conditions created a death trap,” the court observed, citing the overall failure to ensure a safe environment for the workers housed there.

Charges against Imran under Sections 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 35 and 36 of the Indian Penal Code were thus allowed to proceed. In the alternative, he may also be tried under Sections 304A (causing death by negligence), 337 (causing hurt by endangering life) and 338 (causing grievous hurt), among others.

Justice Sharma rejected the notion that responsibility could be divided floor-by-floor, stating that the dangerously poor condition of electric wiring throughout the building created a cumulative risk that could not be compartmentalised. “The fact that the short circuit occurred on the second floor does not exonerate the petitioner,” the court said.