SC rejects curative plea by relatives of Uphaar fire victims
Demand for enhanced punishment turned down
NEW DELHI: A 23-year-old legal battle over the 1997 fire at New Delhi’s Uphaar cinema that killed 59 people has come to an end, with the Supreme Court rejecting a curative petition seeking enhanced punishment for owners of the theatre, brothers Sushil and Gopal Ansal.the ruling was delivered on February 13, but the order was uploaded on the court website only this week.
In 2015, the top court fined the brothers ~30 crore each and reduced their imprisonment to the duration they had already spent in prison, on payment of the fine. It modified Gopal Ansal’s sentence in 2017, ordering him to serve the remaining period of the one-year imprisonment handed to him by the Delhi high court. Sushil Ansal, the court ruled in 2017 citing his advanced age, needn’t spend time beyond the nine months he had already served in jail.
The concept of the curative petition is based on a 2002 case, Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra & Another, which laid down the parameters for the Supreme Court to reconsider its own orders after dismissing a review petition, to prevent abuse of processes and remedy potential miscarriage of justice.
“In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this
prising families of those who died in the fire that broke out in the cinema on June 13, 1997, killing 59 people including 23 children who were watching the period war drama, Border.
Neelam Krishnamoorthy, who founded AVUT, said that she is “shattered” by the ruling.
“As parents seeking justice for the killing of their children, we can now say with certainty that, in India, justice is a luxury accessible only to the rich and powerful,” Krishnamoorthy, who lost her 17-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son in the blaze, said. “We waited for a quarter century but justice was denied to the Uphaar victims.”
The fire was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the accused, including Sushil and Gopal
Ansal, were charged with offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), section 304 A (causing death by negligent act), section 337 (hurt) and section 338 (grievous hurt).
The trial court, in November 2007, convicted 12 accused including Sushil and Gopal Ansal. The Ansal brothers were found guilty of offences under sections 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of ~5,000.
The Delhi high court, in December 2008, upheld their conviction, but reduced the sentence from imprisonment for two years to one year. The Supreme Court, in March 2014, upheld the convictions. But the judges on the bench differed with respect to the sentence to be awarded to the brothers.
While justice TS Thakur upheld rigorous imprisonment of one year which had been imposed by the high court, justice Gyan Sudha Misra, who was the other judge on the bench, said the sentence needs to be enhanced to two-year imprisonment. Interestingly, justice Misra said the Ansal brothers could pay ~50 crore to escape an enhanced sentence.
Given the difference of opinion on the sentence, the matter went before a three-judge bench which agreed with the view taken by justice Misra and ordered in 2015 that the Ansal brothers pay ~30 crore each. In the event of such payment, the sentence would be reduced to the period already spent by them in prison, the court had held.
“We, therefore, direct that a fine of ~30 crore on each appellant should be imposed and if the said fine is paid within a period of three months, the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the sentence already undergone,” the 2015 order said.
The sentence of Gopal Ansal was, however, partially modified by the apex court in 2017 after a review petition was filed by the AVUT. The court, in its 2017 order, said Gopal Ansal should serve the remaining period of the one-year imprisonment handed to him by the Delhi high court.
The fire at the Uphaar cinema started because of a faulty transformer installed and maintained on the premises by the Delhi Vidyut Board. The transformer ruptured, causing an oil spill which sparked a fire and consequently set ablaze several vehicles parked nearby. The fire generated thick smoke which travelled upwards and entered the cinema hall from the staircase and air conditioning ducts.
The audience seated on the ground floor managed to escape but those watching the movie from balcony seats were not so fortunate. The lights had gone out because of a power outage and there were no emergency lights to point to the exits. No warnings were sounded through a public address system for immediate evacuation.
The gravity of the situation was accentuated by the fact that one of the exits was closed while another exit had become narrow because of additional seats being placed in the space in violation of rules, leading to panic among the audience and delaying their escape.
Another case relating to tampering with evidence in the Uphaar fire is pending against the Ansal brothers in the trial court. and the telcos for not adhering to its original order and summoned the managing directors of the latter to court on the date of the next hearing (March 17) if they had not paid up by then.
“The government has sought legal opinion in the light of recent verdict of the Supreme Court before it will take a final call in a day or two,” one of the two officials said.
According to the officials at least three senior cabinet ministers are directly involved in this matter. Bharti Airtel chairman Sunil Mittal on Thursday met telecom minister Ravi Shankar Prasad , they said. “AGR is an unprecedented crisis for industry, which is being dealt with by government,” Mittal was quoted as saying by news agency PTI. Mittal and Vodafone Idea chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla met finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman individually on Wednesday.
DOT last week asked all telecom companies to repay AGR dues immediately as per the October 24, 2019 verdict of the Supreme Court. According to the verdict telcos were expected to pay AGR dues of about ₹1.47 lakh crore by January 23, 2020. Airtel owes around ₹35,000 crore and Vodafone about ₹55,000 crore.
Airtel paid ₹10,000 crore on Monday and Vodafone has so far paid ₹3,500 crore. After paying the amount on February 17, Airtel said in a letter to the DOT that the payment was made on an “ad-hoc, on account” basis as the company was in the process of “completing the self-assessment exercise expeditiously” and would duly make the balance payment upon completion of the same before the next hearing of the Supreme Court, which is on March 17.
Spokespersons of finance ministry, ministry of telecom, law ministry and Airtel declined comment.
A Vodafone Idea spokesperson wasn’t immediately available for comment.
The first official said the government is listening to specific concerns of the telecom companies and wants to help them. “Closure of any telecom company would limit competition, aggravate unemployment and have adverse impact on their lenders,” he said.
According to industry experts closure of one of the big three — Airtel and Vodfone Idea together serve around 60% of subscribers — would mean direct and indirect loss of employment to about 1 lakh people and a massive financial jolt to the banking sector yet to recover from massive crisis of non-performing assets (NPAS).
Former finance secretary Subhash Chandra Garg said that closure would mean “NPAS will get transmitted to banks, if bank guarantees are encashed”.
“The duopoly of Jio-airtel would not be in the interest of country. India needs a healthy and competitive telecom sector. It would be in national interest if Vodafone survives as a strong player,” he said. His reference is to Reliance Jio, which had to pay only ₹195 crore and has already done so.
At the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in December, Birla had said that Vodafone Idea would have to shut shop if the company does not get any relief.
“If we are not getting anything, then I think it is the end of story for Vodafone Idea,” he said.
“They (government) have publicly stated that they want three players from the private sector and one player from the public sector, so I think we can expect much more stimulus from the government because it is required by the sector to survive,” he said.