Delhi High Court: In a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the wake of the collapse of 2 buildings being run as PG hostels for boys at Satya Niketan, New Delhi, housing around 50 students, resulting in the death of at least 7 persons, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Tejas Karia, J., expressed serious concern over the inadequate hostel facilities available to out-station students, the safety and security of students residing in PG hostels, and the measures adopted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and other authorities to regulate such establishments. The Court issued several directions including a comprehensive examination of the regulatory framework governing PG hostels, the availability of university/government hostels, the legality of the collapsed buildings, accountability of officials responsible for regulatory lapses.
The instant PIL was instituted in the wake of a most unfortunate incident at Satya Niketan, where 2 buildings being operated as PG hostels for boys, accommodating around 50 students, collapsed. The incident resulted in the loss of at least 7 human lives. Several students affected by the collapse were taken to hospitals, while others were believed to remain trapped beneath the debris.
The Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India, Delhi Police and MCD, assured the Court that the authorities would not leave any stone unturned in the rescue operations.
The Court, however, considered that a “deeper and a meaningful approach” was required from the authorities. It noted that the buildings housed students studying in colleges associated or affiliated with Delhi University’s South Campus, many of whom came from outside Delhi. The Court further observed that Delhi University does not provide adequate hostel facilities for out-station students. Consequently, students and their parents are compelled to depend upon privately operated PG hostels for accommodation.
The Court expressed deep concern regarding inadequate housing facilities in the form of hostels, the safety and security of students and the regulatory measures adopted by the MCD and other authorities in respect of PG hostels.
The Court opined that the prima facie responsibility for such mishaps does not lie solely upon the owner of the PG hostel, but also extends to the University authorities and the MCD, particularly the MCD being the authority responsible for ensuring that construction and other development activities in Delhi comply strictly with applicable building bye-laws and regulations.
The Court further observed that such mishaps may be the consequence of inadequate measures deployed by the MCD and other authorities. “Had the authorities been alive to their responsibilities and duties cast on them statutorily, perhaps, such incidents could have been avoided.”
Taking note of the assurance given by the MCD, Union of India and Delhi Police that all possible steps were being taken and the rescue operation was being conducted in full swing, the Court expressed the hope that the efforts would be doubled so that human lives could be saved.
The Court issued several directions to ensure accountability and a wider examination of the safety and legality of PG hostels:
-
All respondents were directed to file separate responses to the averments made in the writ petition.
-
The MCD was specifically directed to state whether any statutory or executive regulations exist for regulating PG hostels in Delhi.
-
Delhi University was directed to disclose:
(i) the number of out-station students taking admission in its affiliated colleges; and
(ii) the number of hostels, along with their respective capacities, being operated by the University or Government.
-
The MCD, at the highest executive level, was directed to conduct an inquiry into whether the buildings which collapsed had been constructed pursuant to valid permissions.
-
If the inquiry establishes that the buildings were constructed without legal permission or in derogation of applicable building bye-laws, the MCD was directed to fix responsibility upon the officers/employees responsible for such lapse.
-
The MCD was directed to disclose what action had been proposed against erring officers/officials, if any.
-
Within 1 week, the MCD was directed to inspect all PG hostels falling within its jurisdiction and prepare a report specifying:
(i) whether the buildings housing such PG hostels had the requisite permissions; and
(ii) whether there had been any violation of such permissions or building bye-laws.
-
The MCD’s response was also directed to disclose the number of students residing in these PG hostels.
-
The affidavits in terms of the order were directed to be filed within 10 days.
-
Matter listed on 25 September 2026.
[Aniket Kumar Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6754, decided on 7-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Mr. Hitender Yadav, Mr. Ratnesh, Mr. Kunal Yadav, Mr. Ranjan Choudhary, Mr. Yasser Shabir Chowdhary, Mr. Shantanu Sagar and Mr. Mohd. Atif, Advs.
For the Respondents 1 to 4: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India and Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC, Civil, GNCTD, Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC, MCD, Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC, Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC, Criminal, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Mr. Naman, Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Mr. Priyankar Tiwary, Mr. Vaibhav Tripathy, Ms. Rajbala, Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advs.
For the Respondents 6: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal with Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Ms. Tripti Sharma, Advs.
For MCD: Mr. A.K. Jain, EE (Building HQ), MCD and Mr. Saurabh Sashwat, DC, MCD
