Delhi HC questions government over Satya Niketan collapse

The Delhi High Court on Monday came down heavily on authorities over the collapse of a multi-storey Paying Guest (PG) building in South West Delhi’s Satya Niketan, questioning why young students continue to be exposed to unsafe accommodation in the national capital. At least six people were killed in the collapse near Delhi University’s South Campus.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Aniket Kumar Gupta, who sought ₹1 crore compensation for the families of the victims, an independent probe into the collapse and a comprehensive structural safety audit of PGs, hostels and student accommodation facilities across Delhi.

During the hearing, the Bench expressed anguish over reports that students remained trapped under the debris and directed the Delhi government to intensify rescue efforts. The court said the government could not “escape responsibility” for the tragedy and questioned what concrete steps were being taken to prevent similar incidents.

The Bench observed that building-related tragedies have repeatedly occurred in Delhi and raised concerns over the manner in which private PGs are constructed and operated. It pointed to instances where buildings allegedly exceed sanctioned limits, observing that structures approved for two floors are sometimes expanded to six.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, MCD and Delhi Police, told the court that rescue operations were underway and all possible measures were being taken. He also raised concerns over videos showing injured or trapped victims being circulated on social media, saying tragedies should not be sensationalised. The court said it would consider the issue.

The court sought responses from the Centre, MCD and Delhi University on the number of students living in PGs, hostel availability and regulations governing such accommodation. Delhi University was asked to provide details of student admissions and hostel facilities, while the MCD was directed to clarify whether statutory or executive rules regulate PG establishments in Delhi.

The PIL has also raised questions over alleged repair, renovation or construction work being carried out shortly before the collapse, including compliance with sanctioned plans, structural stability and fire-safety requirements.

The petitioner has sought an investigation into the roles of the owner, builders, contractors, architects, structural engineers and officials responsible for inspections and enforcement.

The Delhi High Court will hear the matter next on September 25.