The question before the Court was a small procedural one, whether a former top police officer should be allowed to join, as a party, the proceedings arising from a fatal building collapse near Delhi University. But it drew a sharp exchange: the Bench said her years of administrative experience could help it, while the Centre, appearing for the Delhi Government and the MCD too, opposed her entry on the ground that she was prejudging the matter. The Court asked it not to be adversarial and sought a reply in three days.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has observed that the administrative experience of former IPS officer Kiran Bedi could be of assistance to it in the proceedings arising from the recent Satya Niketan paying-guest building collapse, while hearing her application seeking to be impleaded in the matter. The Central Government opposed the application.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia asked the government to file its reply to the impleadment application within three days, and listed the matter for September 25 along with a batch of pleas concerning the incident.
The exchange over impleadment
At the outset, the Chief Justice observed that Bedi is a conscious citizen of the country whose administrative experience of years could be very helpful to the Court.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union Government, the Delhi Government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, said that while he had immense respect for Bedi, he had instructions to oppose the impleadment application on the ground that she was prejudging the issue. He asked that the Centre be given a chance to file a response, and submitted that the Court should first await the status reports the authorities had been directed to file.
The Court clarified the limited purpose it had in mind, observing that the impleadment was not to file any responses but to assist the Bench, and that it could always utilise her long experience. When the ASG maintained that Bedi was prejudging the issue, the Court remarked that there was no pre-judgment, and asked him not to take the matter adversarially. It then directed the ASG to file a reply to the impleadment application within three days.
The background
The proceedings arise from the collapse of a five-storey building housing a boys’ paying-guest accommodation near Delhi University’s South Campus in early September, which came down while repair work was under way in its basement. Seven people were killed and several others rescued and hospitalised; locals alleged that the basement had been waterlogged, which may have weakened the structure. The Delhi Police registered a case at the South Campus police station against three persons, on charges that reported accounts describe as including culpable homicide, negligence in the upkeep of a structure and endangering the safety of others under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The High Court has been monitoring the matter closely. It recently asked the authorities to double their efforts to save the lives of the students affected by the collapse, and directed the MCD to take up the issue at its highest executive level and to have an enquiry conducted into whether the buildings that collapsed had been constructed under valid permission. If it were found that the construction lacked valid permission, the Court said, the MCD must fix the responsibility of the erring officials or employees for the lapse. The Supreme Court, which was separately moved, has allowed the Delhi High Court to continue hearing the matter while keeping a watch on the wider issue of the misuse of residential land for hostels.
Why it matters
The dispute over Bedi’s impleadment is small in itself but touches a recurring question about who may join a public-interest proceeding and in what capacity. Impleadment as a party is ordinarily for those with a direct stake in the outcome; the Court here framed Bedi’s possible role differently, not as a litigant with a position to advance, but as a person whose administrative experience could assist the Bench, closer to the role of an intervenor or a source of expertise than a contesting party. That distinction is what the Court was pressing when it said the application was not to file responses but to assist.
The Centre’s objection, that she was prejudging the issue, reflects a legitimate concern that a high-profile entrant with publicly known views could tilt or crowd a proceeding in which the government’s own conduct, through the MCD and the civic authorities, is under scrutiny. The Court’s response, that there was no pre-judgment and that the matter should not be approached adversarially, signals that it sees her potential contribution as neutral assistance rather than advocacy. How that is resolved will turn on the reply the Centre files and the terms, if any, on which the Court admits her.
Underlying all of it is the substantive matter, which is grave: seven deaths in a PG collapse, and a judicial inquiry into whether the building stood on valid permissions and whether officials failed in their duty. The Court’s earlier directions, fixing responsibility on erring officials if permissions were lacking, and the Supreme Court’s watch on the misuse of residential land for hostels, indicate that the proceedings are aimed at systemic accountability for student housing safety, not merely the individual tragedy. Nothing on the impleadment has been decided; the Court has only sought a reply and fixed a date.
Case: Batch of pleas concerning the Satya Niketan PG building collapse, with the impleadment application of Kiran Bedi
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, High Court of Delhi
Appearing: Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma for the Union, the Delhi Government and the MCD
Status: Centre to reply to the impleadment application within three days; matter listed for September 25. Criminal case against three persons is under investigation; allegations untested.