Neelam Krishnamoorthy has been fighting the legal battle for the last 25 years to make India fire-free. In the interview with The Leaflet, she says she has failed to achieve that.
——-
ON June 13, 1997, 25 years ago, a man-made fire tragedy took place in south Delhi’s Uphaar Cinema. The Uphaar cinema, owned by real estate giants Sushil and Gopal Ansals, was screening the Hindi movie ‘Border’ when a fire in a transformer in the basement resulted in the emission of thick smoke and toxic gas, killing 59 people. More than 100 of them were injured in the subsequent stampede. Out of the 59 lives that succumbed to death belonging to 28 families, 23 of them were children with the youngest being 30 days old. The owners had carried out major structural deviations of the cinema hall resulting in the closure of the right-hand side exit in the balcony. There was no adherence to the fire safety rules and the exit doors were bolted from inside.
Unnati and Ujjwal were amongst the 23 children that lost their lives on that unfortunate day. Their parents, Neelam and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy have been fighting a long legal battle for the last 25 years. Neelam, the founder of the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (‘AVUT’) which brought 28 families together to fight the legal battle, interacted with The Leaflet on the 25th anniversary of the Uphaar fire tragedy.
Excerpts from the interview:
Q: Could you tell us about what happened on June 13, 1997?
A: Our lives came to a standstill from that day. That was the last time I lit a lamp and prayed to god. For us, it was like any other day. It was vacation time for our children. My daughter was a movie buff and she wanted me to book the tickets for the movie ‘Border’. I left home early to visit my brother-in-law in the hospital. When we came back, we had lunch together with our children. That was the last meal we had with our children. Thereafter, both siblings went to see the movie.
They were supposed to be back around 7:30 to 8 pm. I sent a message to them on the pager to contact me. I did not receive a reply in the time expected. It was very unlikely of them to do that. After some time, I received a call from Unnati’s friend Vishal asking me her whereabouts. I informed him that she is at the Uphaar cinema with Ujjwal. He hesitantly said, “Aunty, there has been a fire at Uphaar”. We were told there were seven casualties so far.
Also read: Laws, flaws and accountability
“I went to the courts with immense faith in the system. But we have been utterly disappointed and who disappointed us? The Supreme Court of India. How do you expect justice from the Supreme Court of India when they had let us down. Now, if someone tells me to go to the Supreme Court, I detest it!
We made our way to the cinema hall. There was utter chaos. The police told us to find our children in either AIIMS or Safdarjung hospital. We went to AIIMS and tried to find our children. We could not find them. Thereafter, someone took me to the OPD block and there, I found Unnati lying on the stretcher. I instantly collapsed. After regaining consciousness, I was told by Shekhar that Ujjwal is also no more. That was the end of our lives.
Q: What happened next?
A: Immediately after the disaster, the Lieutenant Governor on June 14, 1997, ordered an enquiry into the incident and appointed Naresh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (South), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, to conduct the enquiry. There were directions from the Lieutenant Governor to not perform the post-mortem as it was a volatile situation. They could not have performed a post-mortem of the 59 bodies. Those 13 days were extremely traumatising for us. There can be nothing worse than parents outliving their children and I wish the judiciary understood this.
Q: Let’s talk about your legal journey. There are too many cases. You have the civil compensation case. Then, the criminal case and now, the evidence tampering. Please tell us about that.
A: There are too many cases and some of them are still going on. In the last one and a half years, I can only be found in the trial court. Even during the pandemic, when people were at home, I was sitting in the trial court. But that is how the conviction happened in the evidence tampering case on October 8, 2021. The sentencing happened on November 8, 2021.
Q: When did you discover there was tampering with evidence?
A: In January 2003. In 2003, we approached the High court for the cancellation of bail of the Ansal brothers and the fire official. In 2006, we moved the Delhi High Court and requested it to pass directions to the Delhi Police to lodge an FIR. In 2014, the charges were framed against all the seven accused persons including the Ansals under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 109( punishment for abetment), 201(causing disappearance of evidence of offence)and 120B(punishment for criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Ansals, who have been sentenced to seven years, had approached the Sessions Court and then to the High Court for the suspension of sentencing which was dismissed. The first session judge hearing the appeal was transferred. The second judge recused himself. It was now the third judge who is hearing the appeal.
Q: What about the civil case?
A: Our first case was a civil writ petition for compensation. We went to the Supreme Court under Article 32. They told us to approach the High Court since all the parties were based in Delhi and this would also allow us to include private parties as defendants. But once we approached the Delhi High Court under Section 226, they questioned us on maintainability. The arguments on maintainability went on till 2001.
In between, many judges recused themselves. Finally, when it went to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, S.N Variava in Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy versus Union of India & Ors (2000) he observed that “the standards set under the statute and the rules for preventing public hazards were observed only by their breach” and held that the petition is maintainable.
We got the verdict on April 24, 2003. The Delhi High Court bench consisting Justices S Mahajan and M Mudgal awarded Rs.18, 00, 000 for adults and 15,00,000 for children as compensation (paragraph 96 of the judgment). The respondents were also directed to pay 2, 50, 00,000 for setting up a Central Accident Trauma Centre. But the Supreme Court, in 2011, with all its generosity reduced the amount to Rs.10, 00,000 for adults and 7,50,000 lakhs for children. The court said that the lack of legislation on tortious liability often leads to arbitrary fixation of the compensation amount. That is what the Supreme Court thought the value of life is in this country.
Also read: Uphaar tragedy: significance of the trial court verdict on the destruction of evidence
“How did the judges know that they had medical issues? There was no single medical record presented before the court on this. Not a single document to show their medical ailment…. I want to ask, why a different yardstick? The court did not follow this in Stan Swamy’s case.
This is a terrible precedent because this is what was followed in the Meerut fire tragedy. The Supreme Court commuted the amount of compensation based on this judgment. They followed Uphaar as precedent. I remember, the court asked Senior Advocate, K.T.S.Tulsi to give them a judgment where more than Rs.10 lakhs is given as compensation. He told the court, “My lord, it is you who have to increase the amount of the compensation.”
Anyway, my fight was not about money. Even a king’s fortune cannot bring my children back.
Q: But what was your fight all about? To see the Ansal brothers behind the bars?
A: Yes and that is why I did not file a review petition in the civil case. But the criminal case was extremely challenging for us. The initial FIR was lodged by Delhi Police. The case was transferred to the CBI on July 24, 1997. CBI filed the charge sheet against 16 accused on November 15, 1997. For the first year, we went to court and all we got is the date of the next hearing. But the trial began only on January 4, 1999. The trial went on smoothly. But once the arguments from the CBI and the 13 accused persons were concluded, the judge got transferred. We wrote to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. But nothing happened. The hearing had to start all over again. The case was re-heard by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Q: But the judicial delay continued?
A: Yes. The CBI requested the court to hear the matter daily. But the request was denied. AVUT approached the High Court and sought directions to hear the matter on day-to-day basis. It was only after the intervention of the High Court, that the charges were finally framed in February 2001. But the accused persons moved the High Court for a stay on the trial. The High Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial and only conduct an Examination-in-Chief of the prosecution witnesses. All 16 accused persons had approached the court to stay the trial. Finally, the verdict came on September 11, 2001, and then the trial court proceeded. Nevertheless, the trial proceeded at a snail’s pace in April 2002: out of 191 witnesses, only 12 witnesses were examined. We again got directions from the High Court. The trial went on till 2007.
Q: What was the conviction?
A: They were convicted under Section 304A(causing death by negligence). We wanted them to be convicted under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). They challenged the conviction before the Delhi High Court through an appeal and modified their sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Then they approached the Supreme Court, the sentence was again modified. Justice Thakur had upheld the conviction by the Delhi High Court. Whereas, Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra observed that the punishment is enhanced to another year. Because of the dissent, the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court acquitted the Ansal brothers for the period undergone and increased the amount of fine substantially.
Sushil Ansal was acquitted on the grounds of old age. How did the judges know that they had medical issues? There was no single medical record presented before the court on this. Not a single document to show their medical ailment. That was the most horrible day of my life. If people ask me to go to the Supreme Court, I am extremely scared to do it. We then filed a review and the court only gave one-year imprisonment to Gopal Ansal.
Our curative petition was also rejected. I want to ask, why a different yardstick? The court did not follow this in Stan Swamy’s case.
Q: Did you not want the case to be transferred to CBI?
A: Definitely not. I want to point out that the initial FIR lodged by the Delhi Police, was under Section 304. It was the Delhi Police that had arrested Sushil and his son Pranav Ansal on July 21, 1997. But the next day, the Ministry of Home Affairs transferred the case to the CBI. The victims did not demand a CBI probe.
Q: I understand that you have fought a long legal battle for the last 25 years. If your case has been such, I cannot imagine what would happen to those who lack the resources to approach the judiciary. What do you think?
A: I have attended all court proceedings. I have been present in the court every time a witness deposed. I can tell you for sure, that it’s not possible for an ordinary citizen to knock on the doors of the court. I was fortunate to have Senior Advocate K.T.S Tulsi, now Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, who fought the case pro bono for us. We sat for hours and learnt the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Evidence Act, the Delhi Cinematographic Rules 1953 and the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. We made ourselves capable to brief the counsels. That was a challenging exercise, but without it, we would not have been here. A person who cannot understand this nitty-gritty would be at a loss.
Q. Senior Advocate K.T.S Tulsi recommended you to form an association consisting of the family members of the victims. Is that right?
A: When I met Senior Advocate K.T.S Tulsi, he offered to take up the case on two conditions. His first condition was that he will take up this case pro bono. Second, he wanted us to form an association. We went through the obituary column of the newspaper and contacted the families. Everyone was grieving. We did not know if they would be forthcoming. But, we met some people and they agreed with us on the recommendation of our counsel. On June 30, 1997, we formed AVUT consisting of nine members. Soon, other family members also started contacting us and that’s how the 28 families got together to seek justice.
Q: Did you face any hurdles in forming AVUT?
A: Absolutely. Ansals were really powerful in 1997. They were one of the biggest builders in Asia then. The builders’ lobby is really scary for a common man because they are goons. People are genuinely afraid to go against them. In fact, I was advised numerous times to not go against them.
“Chief Justice of India recently said denial of justice leads to anarchy. He is right. But I wish he would do something about it. I want to ask him as a litigant who has been to the courts for 25 years: Is he going to do something so that a common man has faith in the judicial system?
Q: Did you face any safety issues?
A: I have been threatened by their goons and lawyers as well. But nothing scared me after losing my children.
Q: Have you been stopped from entering the courts?
A: Yes. In fact, once a judge saw the Ansals’ bodyguards blocking my way from entering the courtroom. She advised me to enter the courtroom from the judge’s entry.
Q: Has the judiciary disappointed you?
A: I went to the courts with immense faith in the system. But we have been utterly disappointed and who disappointed us? The Supreme Court of India. How do you expect justice from the Supreme Court of India when they had let us down. Now, if someone tells me to go to the Supreme Court, I detest it!
Chief Justice of India recently said denial of justice leads to anarchy. He is right. But I wish he would do something about it. I want to ask him as a litigant who has been to the courts for 25 years: Is he going to do something so that a common man has faith in the judicial system? If anyone comes to me, I tell them please do not make the mistake of going to the Court as I did. The victims have no place in the criminal justice system. Please look at Navjot Singh Siddu’s case. The court said that disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates a victim of crime. What about the frustration in our case?
