Back
Directs Uttar Pradesh To Frame Compensation Policy For Non-Natural Calamities
In a significant ruling that could reshape how the state handles compensation for victims of man-made disasters, the () has directed the to formulate a comprehensive compensation policy for incidents outside the purview of natural calamities. The order came while hearing a concerning a devastating fire at an animation center in Lucknow in that claimed 15 young lives and left several others injured or disabled.
A Tragedy That Exposed a Policy Void
The PIL, filed by , brought to light the stark disparity in compensation amounts paid by the state for different incidents. During the proceedings, the court was informed that the victims' families had received approximately ₹11 lakh from various sources—₹5 lakh from the , ₹4 lakh from the , and ₹2 lakh from the . However, some families claimed they had not received the PM Relief Fund component.
The court earlier noted that compensation in other incidents had ranged from ₹25 lakh to ₹50 lakh, while in this case it was barely a few lakhs. When the bench asked the state about its policy for determining compensation, the
revealed a startling gap:
"as of now, the policy for payment of compensation is only in respect of natural calamities but not with regard to the incident such as the one at hand."
State's Admission and the Court's Concern
The state government, through its counsel, acknowledged the absence of any policy framework for incidents like fire, police atrocities, or other man-made tragedies. The bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, expressed concern over the potential for in the absence of clear parameters.
The court observed that the state often grants compensation under various heads—sometimes under statutory provisions like the
, sometimes
—but without a uniform policy, the process could lead to unequal treatment.
"This is necessary to avoid
and also that a case which was less deserving may not get more compensation and vice versa,"
the bench remarked, directing the concerned departments to
"put their heads together and come-up with such a policy."
Precedents from the Apex Court
During the hearing, drew the court's attention to three landmark decisions that establish guiding principles for compensation in the absence of a statutory framework. These cases— Sanjay Gupta vs. State of U.P. (), DAV Managing Committee and Anr. vs. Dabwali Tragedy Victims Association (), and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association ()—all involved fire tragedies and laid down that where no policy exists, the principles applicable to should be followed.
The court directed the state to keep these judgments in mind and respond on affidavit regarding the compensation already paid and
"why it should not be enhanced."
Individual Case of Jayant Gupta
The court also took up the case of Jayant Gupta, a 25-year-old who suffered injuries and disability in the fire and is undergoing treatment at (KGMU). His counsel informed the bench that his monthly treatment expenses amount to ₹70,000, while he has received only ₹50,000 as compensation.
Observing that the incident occurred not only due to the building owner's lapse but also due to the authorities' failure—including the
—in allowing the illegal commercial use of the building, the court directed the state to pay Gupta's medical bills. KGMU was instructed not to charge any expenses from Gupta and to ensure he receives adequate treatment.
"The patient shall not be made to pay for his treatment,"
the bench ordered.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"We do not wish to narrate incidents herein because they are umpteen in number. Sometimes some police atrocities are committed and the State Government grants compensation, in other situations there are statutory provisions such as under the SC/ ST Act. Therefore, the State Government wherever it grants compensation outside the purview of any statutory provisions, it should have a policy laying down certain parameters on which the compensation is to be determined and paid."
"
, as the incident occurred not only due to lapse on the part of the owner but also on the part of the authorities whether it be of the L.D.A. or any other department of the Government in allowing such building to come up and being used for commercial purposes illegally, therefore, we are of the opinion that the least that the State can do is to pay the bills of the said injured person."
What Happens Next?
The matter has been listed for further hearing on . The state government has been directed to file an affidavit addressing the court's concerns, including a proposed policy framework. The court has also asked the 's counsel to verify the status of PM Relief Fund payments to all victim families.
This ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications, compelling the to establish a transparent and non-discriminatory mechanism for compensating victims of non-natural calamities—a move that could set a precedent for other states as well.
