A Delhi court has ordered that charges be framed against Uphaar cinema tragedy convict Sushil Ansal for allegedly concealing criminal cases and giving false information during the renewal of his passport. The court held that sufficient material exists to proceed against him.
A Delhi court directed that charges be framed against Sushil Ansal, a convict in the Uphaar fire tragedy, for allegedly concealing criminal cases and providing false information while renewing his passport.
Ansal was charged by the Delhi Police’s crime branch in 2019 for allegedly giving misleading information, failing to disclose his conviction related to the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Shriya Agrawal of Patiala House Courts ruled on November 28 that “prima facie, there is sufficient material” to move forward with charges under Sections 420 (cheating), 177 (furnishing false information to a public servant), 181 (making false statements under oath) of the IPC, and Section 12 (offenses related to passports) of the Passports Act, scheduling a formal charge framing for January 13, 2026.
The judge noted that Ansal “has consciously concealed the details of criminal cases pending against him as also the order of conviction” in the sworn declaration he submitted with his 2013 Tatkaal passport application.
This concealment served to induce under misrepresentation the Regional Passport Office into issuing his passport.
The court indicated that Ansal not only withheld details of his convictions and pending FIRs but also “consciously did not give proper details of his previous address, to evade detection of true criminal history.”
The alleged falsehoods occurred on two occasions, in 2013 and 2018.
In its November 28 order, the court expressed that,
“It is a given that subsequent acknowledgment of ‘unintentional mistake’ by the Accused cannot erode the previous culpability, as the Accused had remained in possession and used the valuable document throughout based on misleading declarations in breach of the statutory requirements.”
The court dismissed the defense’s argument that prosecution could not proceed without a written complaint, stating that the condition was fulfilled since the case was initiated following directives from the Delhi High Court.
Referencing a Supreme Court precedent, the order stated that a High Court directive “is on a par with direction of an administrative superior public servant” for the purposes of cognizance.
Additionally, the defense’s claim of “double jeopardy” was rejected, with the court explaining that the penalty from the Passport Authority and the criminal proceedings are distinct processes and cannot be seen as punishment for the same offense.
“The Passport Authority imposing penalty, cannot and would not substitute for formal criminal proceedings under the statute imposing criminal sanction, which can only be considered in judicial proceedings, but for which, a case of double jeopardy would not arise.”
Finally, the court opted not to proceed with charges under Sections 192 and 197 IPC.
In reaction to the ruling, Neelam Krishnamoorthy, chairperson of the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT), described the incident as not an isolated incident and noted that it marks Ansal’s third criminal case.
Krishnamoorthy asserted,
“Each time, he is let off or given concessions on the grounds of ‘old age.’ But the truth is: he was already 64 when he tampered with judicial records and 74 when he renewed his passport from the authorities by giving false information and without seeking the permission of the court. How long can one individual continue to commit offence after offence and still evade meaningful accountability? The justice system must send a clear message repeated wrongdoing cannot become a lifelong escape act,”
Ansal has already been found guilty in the Uphaar fire tragedy case, which claimed 59 innocent lives, and was also convicted for evidence tampering, an act that undermined the court and the justice system, she added.
The Uphaar Cinema incident occurred during the screening of the Hindi film ‘Border’ on June 13, 1997, resulting in the loss of 59 lives. AVUT has previously been granted permission to assist the prosecution in this case, according to an order dated August 4.
The apex court, in September 2015, ruled the Ansal brothers, Gopal and Sushil Ansal, guilty of causing death due to negligence in that incident. In addition to a one-year sentence, they were fined Rs.60 crore, designated for building a trauma center in the national capital.