Policy Shifts

Government rejects Bedi’s bid to join collapse case

By Rossa Wijayanti · · 2 min read
Government rejects Bedi’s bid to join collapse case - delhi high court
The Satya Niketan collapse in September 2023 killed seven people and triggered a ₹1 crore compensation lawsuit.

The Central government has opposed former Indian Police Service officer and former Puducherry Lieutenant Governor Kiran Bedi’s request to be added as a party in a Delhi High Court case that stems from the Satya Niketan building collapse. The tragic incident in September 2023 claimed seven lives and prompted a public-interest litigation seeking ₹1 crore in compensation for the victims’ families as well as a structural audit of every paying-guest (PG) accommodation operating in the national capital.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Tejas Karia recognized that Bedi’s extensive administrative background could prove useful in a complex safety-oversight matter. Nevertheless, the bench allotted the government three days to submit a formal reply objecting to her inclusion, noting her “conscientious” civic involvement but stopping short of mandating the government’s consent.

Read Also: Osborne Partners joins Delta Consulting Group for global disputes expansion

The collapse of the PG building triggered a court-ordered inquiry by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). That body was instructed to verify whether the structure possessed valid construction permits and to compile data on student occupancy across PG facilities. The court also asked whether any existing regulations specifically govern such accommodations. The next hearing is slated for 25 September, when the bench will review the government’s response and any additional evidence.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma contended that Bedi’s application risked prejudging the core issues of the case. Her plea had sought impleadment to “highlight systemic failures” in the oversight of PG premises, but the government’s objection suggests concerns about procedural fairness and the possibility of perceived bias.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.