news details |
|
|
| Satya Niketan Tragedy: Accountability must come before disaster strikes again | | | Lalit Gargg
The collapse on Sunday of a five-storey student-PG building in Delhi’s Satya Niketan is not merely a tragic accident. It raises serious questions about a system that allows buildings to come up, permits unauthorized construction, allows students to live in them, overlooks structural vulnerabilities for years—and wakes up only after the building collapses. Six people have reportedly lost their lives and several others have been injured. Preliminary reports indicate that the building had a basement and several upper floors, and that repair or construction work was underway. The administration has ordered a magisterial inquiry and an FIR against the building owner. But the real question is not who will face an FIR after the tragedy? The real question is: Where were the responsible authorities before the tragedy? If there was a violation of construction norms, if there was no sanctioned building plan, if additional floors had been constructed, if construction work was being carried out in the basement, if the building was being used to accommodate students, and if it was structurally unsafe—why did the administration not detect these violations while the construction was taking place? Why did action not begin when the danger first became visible?
Satya Niketan, located near the South Campus of Delhi University, is one of the major student neighbourhoods of the capital. Thousands of young people from different parts of the country come here with dreams of education and a better future. They live in small rooms, paying-guest accommodations and rented premises while pursuing their studies. Their parents spend a substantial part of their lifetime savings on their children’s education, believing that their children will be safe in the national capital. But when a young person who has left home in search of education ends up living in a building whose very foundation rests on compromises with rules and safety, our entire concept of development stands exposed. And this is not the first warning. In 2022, a four-storey under-construction building in Satya Niketan collapsed, killing two workers and injuring four others. Even then, questions were raised about construction practices, safety measures and building supervision. Nearly four years later, another major building collapsed in the same area. It means that instead of learning from the tragedy, we treated it merely as a news story and moved on.
While discussing corruption, however, caution is necessary. It would be unfair to declare any officer or businessman guilty without an investigation. But if an inquiry establishes that construction violations were deliberately ignored, inspections were conducted negligently, or there was any form of collusion, accountability cannot stop with the building owner. The person who violated the rules and the person who allowed those violations to continue must both be held accountable. The Satya Niketan tragedy cannot be viewed in isolation from the Old Rajinder Nagar tragedy of July 2024. There, three civil services aspirants—Tanya Soni, Shreya Yadav and Naveen Dalwin—lost their lives after water flooded the basement of the Rao IAS Study Circle. The most disturbing fact was that the basement was being used as a library, whereas available documents indicated that it was meant for parking and storage.
Even more alarming was the fact that a student had reportedly complained to the MCD almost a month before the tragedy. A complaint filed on June 26, 2024, raised concerns about the illegal use of the basement and warned of the possibility of a major accident. Reminders were reportedly sent on July 15 and July 22. Then, on July 27, three young lives were lost. A subsequent MCD inquiry referred to issues relating to road construction, drainage and other factors. But an equally fundamental question remained: How was a basement being used illegally as a library, and why was timely action not taken despite violations of the rules? This is perhaps the greatest disease afflicting our system: a warning of danger is not treated as a problem; the accident itself is treated as the problem. The law exists on paper, while on the ground the prevailing philosophy is, “It will be fine; everyone does it.”
India does not suffer from a shortage of building regulations. There are rules governing sanctioned building plans, building bye-laws, fire safety, structural safety, occupancy certificates, parking and the use of basements. The problem is not the number of rules; the problem is the integrity with which they are enforced. When a building permitted for one floor ends up with four or five floors; when a basement sanctioned for storage becomes a library or a commercial establishment; when drainage channels are obstructed and construction continues regardless—the issue is not merely individual recklessness. It is a failure of the entire system of supervision that sees such changes taking place in plain sight yet fails to act in time. Corruption is not merely the act of accepting a bribe. Corruption also exists when a responsible person knowingly fails to perform his duty. Turning a blind eye to illegal construction is also a betrayal of public responsibility. Knowing that a building is dangerous and still failing to act is part of a deeply flawed administrative culture.
In May 2024, a fire broke out at the Central Revenue Building in Delhi’s ITO area. A 46-year-old office superintendent died of suffocation caused by smoke. Reports indicated that the building was old and did not have a modern fire-sprinkler system. This tragedy raised another uncomfortable question: If safety standards are inadequate even in government buildings, what can citizens expect from the monitoring of private and unauthorized structures? After every tragedy, the same familiar spectacle unfolds. Ministers visit the site. Officials hold meetings. Compensation is announced. An inquiry committee is constituted. Some buildings are sealed. A few arrests are made. For a few days, the administration appears intensely active. And then, gradually, everything returns to normal. For them, an inquiry committee is not a solution; it is a lifetime of emptiness. Compensation cannot replace their son or daughter. They want to know why their child was not safe. Who guaranteed that safety? Who was responsible for supervision? Who ignored the danger? Who failed to act when action could have saved lives? Therefore, the purpose of an inquiry should not merely be to identify an individual culprit. It must also determine where and how the system failed. Where did the file stop moving? Who conducted the inspection? Who ignored or suppressed the complaint? On what basis was the building plan approved? How did unauthorized construction continue for years? Who was responsible for the safety of the people living in the building? And most importantly—will the officials whose very responsibility was to prevent such tragedies also be held accountable?
We must see the eyes of the parents who must have sent their children to Delhi believing that they would study, build successful careers and make their families proud. The death of those dreams is not merely the result of a building collapse. They have been crushed beneath a mindset in which money, convenience and the culture of “it happens everywhere” become more powerful than rules and human safety. It is time for governments to abandon the habit of waking up only after disasters occur. Buildings must be inspected before they collapse. Drainage must be fixed before water becomes a killer. Complaints must be acted upon before they become memorials. And corruption must be prevented before it becomes a tragedy. India does not merely need a New India. It needs a safe, responsible, honest and compassionate India. The rubble of Satya Niketan is asking us a question: Will we wait for the next building to collapse—or will we finally awaken the system before another life is lost? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
