NDLI: Sanjay Gupta & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India: Arts. 21 and 32 –Commission of Inquiry Act 1944 - s. 16 – Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act 2005 1952 - ss.2(a) 3 - U.P. Fire Service Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Constitution of India: Arts. 21 and 32 –Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - ss. 2(a), 3 - U.P. Fire Service Act, 1944 - s. 16 – Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005 - ss. 2(g) ,3 - Code of Criminal Procedure - ss. 133,144 - Occurrence of Fire Tragedy in a Consumer Show, organized by the respondents 10 to 12( Organizers)– Incident claimed lives of 65 persons and 161 suffered burn injuries – Organizers appointed a contractor to look after the proposed construction of exhibition infrastructure – Organizers claiming that contractors liable for fire tragedy – Appointment of Commission by the State of U.P. under the Commission under Inquiry Act – However, report submitted by the Commission not found sustainable by this Court – Thus, this Court appointed Justice Sinha as a one-man commission to give his report on the incident – Writ petition in respect of private law liability of the Organizers – Held : Where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence – Right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right - Art. 21 has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered –Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is very high – On facts, Organizers were the persons responsible for organizing the exhibition and informing people to visit such exhibition after purchase of the ticket – Thus, the property of the Organizers caught fire on account of their negligence and hence are liable to pay compensation – Organizers herein cannot be absolved from their duty of providing safety, even though the Contractor was engaged for providing certain services – Contractor was working on behalf of the Organizers in terms of the work order issued – Therefore, whatsoever may be the relationship between the two, the Organizers cannot be absolutely absolved of their liability – All permissions were required to be sought and were in fact sought by the Organizers - Victims or their families visited exhibition on the invitation of the Organizers and not that of the Contractor – Organizers were supposed to make arrangements for putting up the exhibition hall, providing electricity and water and also the food stalls for the facility of the victims/visitors – They cannot now take shelter on the ground that the Contractor who was given work order was an independent contractor and the victims should seek remedy from him – Contractor has worked for the Organizers and not for the victims – Hence, the Organizers alone are responsible to protect the life and liberty of the victims – Report of the one-man Commission not suffering from any infirmity so as to absolve the Organizers from their responsibility of organizing the exhibition – Court Commissioner rightly fixed the liability on the Organizers to the extent of 60%, and the State with 40% of the total liability – Such distribution of liability does not suffers from any illegality to warrant interference by this Court – High Court Chief Justice to entrust the work of determination of compensation to a District Judge or Additional District Judge – Compensation to be computed in accordance with the principles of just compensation as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.Maxims: res ipsa loquitur – Applicability of – On facts, an exhibition organized of such substantial magnitude without proper and adequate safety factors which may endanger the life of the visitors, wherein fire broke and incident claimed lives of 65 persons and left 161 or more with burn injuries – Maxim res ipsa loquitur would be applicable as, rightly found by the Court Commissioner, an act of negligence including negligence of the officers of the State – Finding on cause of fire is not relevant in determining the civil liability. Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 : ss. 2(a), 3 – Appointment of Inquiry Commission under – Held: Commission under the Act shall be appointed either by the Executive or by the Legislature but not by the Judiciary in terms of the provisions of Inquiry Act – On facts, appointment of the Court Commissioner was though to substitute the Commissioner appointed under the Inquiry Act, but under the Inquiry Act, the Court could not appoint a Commissioner – Such power is conferred only on the executive and the legislature – Thus, the jurisdiction exercised in appointing Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) was vesting with this Court under Art. 142 of the Constitution –Furthermore, it cannot be said that the appointment of the Court Commissioner was as a Commissioner of Inquiry under the Inquiry Act.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 421
Petitioner	Sanjay Gupta & Ors
Respondent	State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors
SCR	[2022] 15 S.C.R. 137
Judgement Date	2022-04-12
Case Number	338

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sanjay Gupta & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors

Please Log-in to view this content

Sanjay Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

G.p. Doval and Others Vs. The Chief Secretary Government of U.p. and Ors.

Sunil Samdaria Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and Others

Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary Vs. The State of Uttar Pradeh & Ors

Prabodh Verma and Others, Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Etc.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

U.p. Secretariat U.d.a. Association Through Its Joint Secretary, G.c. Srivastava and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Mr. Fazalur Rehman and Ors. Vs. The State of U.p. and Ors.

Ajit Prasad Gupta Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Sanjay Gupta & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors

Sanjay Gupta & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sanjay Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

G.p. Doval and Others Vs. The Chief Secretary Government of U.p. and Ors.

Sunil Samdaria Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and Others

Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary Vs. The State of Uttar Pradeh & Ors

Prabodh Verma and Others, Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Etc.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

U.p. Secretariat U.d.a. Association Through Its Joint Secretary, G.c. Srivastava and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Mr. Fazalur Rehman and Ors. Vs. The State of U.p. and Ors.

Ajit Prasad Gupta Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Sanjay Gupta & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors