A Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae blamed the MCD for the Saidulajab building collapse that killed six people and injured fourteen. The report stated that authorities were aware of unauthorised construction for years but failed to take effective action, making the tragedy a result of prolonged regulatory neglect.
An amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court has squarely blamed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for failing to prevent the collapse of a multi-storey building in South Delhi’s Saidulajab area, a tragedy that resulted in the loss of six lives and left at least fourteen others injured.
In a report submitted before the Supreme Court, the amicus concluded that the civic authorities had long been aware of extensive unauthorised construction at the property but failed to take meaningful enforcement measures. According to the report, the fatal collapse was not an unforeseen accident but the culmination of years of regulatory neglect and inaction despite repeated documentation of building violations.
The report was settled by Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Ajit Kumar Sinha and filed through advocate Govind Jee before a Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan.
The incident concerns a five-storey building situated on Western Marg in Delhi’s Saidulajab locality. On May 30, the structure collapsed, trapping several occupants beneath the debris.
Rescue teams were deployed immediately after the collapse, and emergency personnel worked for hours to retrieve victims from the rubble. The disaster ultimately claimed six lives and injured at least fourteen individuals, raising serious concerns regarding the safety of buildings constructed in violation of municipal regulations. The collapse attracted national attention and renewed scrutiny of unauthorised construction activities across urban centres, particularly in densely populated areas where building regulations are frequently alleged to be ignored or inadequately enforced.
The report has been submitted against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s broader examination of illegal constructions and violations of planning laws throughout the country. Earlier this year, the Court expressed concern over widespread disregard for building bye-laws, zoning norms, and land-use regulations. On March 25, the Supreme Court directed authorities nationwide to conduct inquiries into unauthorised constructions and illegal land-use conversions.
Subsequently, on May 20, the Court sought detailed information from various authorities regarding measures undertaken to identify and act against illegal structures. Significantly, the Saidulajab building collapsed merely ten days after the Court’s directions, further intensifying concerns about the effectiveness of local enforcement mechanisms.
One of the most significant findings in the amicus report relates to proceedings that had taken place before the Delhi High Court shortly before the collapse. Approximately six weeks before the incident, a petition filed by Abdul Sakir had come up before the High Court. The petitioner sought action against alleged unauthorised construction at the Saidulajab property.
During those proceedings, counsel appearing for the MCD informed the High Court that no construction activity was being carried out at the site. The corporation also suggested that the dispute primarily stemmed from disagreements between a landlord and a tenant. However, the amicus report has informed the Supreme Court that this representation was contrary to the factual record maintained by the municipal authorities themselves.
According to the report, evidence available with the MCD clearly demonstrated a long history of unauthorised construction at the property, thereby raising questions about the accuracy of the civic body’s submissions before the High Court.
The report traces the history of building violations at the property over several years. According to the findings, the MCD had formally recorded unauthorised construction involving the basement, ground floor, and first floor as early as 2012. Despite such documentation, effective enforcement action was not taken.
The report further states that additional unauthorised construction involving the second and third floors was recorded in May 2015. These violations, too, remained unchecked. The amicus observed that the progression of illegal construction over multiple stages and across several years reflected a systemic failure of enforcement rather than an isolated administrative lapse.
The report notes that it would have been virtually impossible for such extensive construction activities to continue over a prolonged period unless officials entrusted with monitoring and regulating building activity had failed to perform their statutory obligations.
The report also draws attention to an order passed by the Delhi High Court in December 2020. In that order, the High Court had directed the MCD to ensure compliance with applicable building bye-laws at the property. The municipal authorities were expected to take necessary measures to address violations and prevent further illegal development.
Despite the judicial directions, the report states that no meaningful action was taken to halt continued violations or ensure adherence to building regulations. The amicus has therefore suggested that the collapse cannot be viewed in isolation but must be examined against the background of repeated warnings, documented violations, and judicial directions that allegedly went unheeded.
ALSO READ: Calcutta HC Directs Suspension of KMC Officials in Response | Illegal Building Collapse
The report is particularly critical of the measures taken by the MCD after the building collapsed. Describing the civic body’s response as a “mere eyewash” and a “post-facto and cosmetic exercise,” the report questions whether the authorities genuinely sought accountability or merely reacted after the tragedy had already occurred.
Following the collapse, the MCD suspended Assistant Engineer Sudesh Singh Chouhan and Junior Engineer Aman Jain. However, the report notes that these actions were initiated only after lives had been lost and public attention had focused on the incident. According to the amicus, the suspensions do not adequately address the larger institutional failures that allegedly enabled the unauthorised structure to remain standing for years.
The report directly attributes responsibility for the collapse to failures within the municipal administration. It states that the tragedy resulted from “dereliction of duties and slackness” on the part of officials entrusted with enforcing building regulations and preventing illegal construction activities.
The amicus emphasizes that municipal authorities have a statutory obligation to monitor construction activity, identify violations, and take timely action to protect public safety. Failure to discharge these responsibilities, the report suggests, can have catastrophic consequences, as demonstrated by the Saidulajab collapse.
In light of its findings, the amicus has urged the Supreme Court to seek a detailed explanation from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The report recommends that the Court direct the MCD to file an affidavit explaining how the unauthorised structure was permitted to remain in existence despite repeated bookings of violations and prior judicial interventions.
Additionally, the amicus has proposed broader remedial measures aimed at preventing similar incidents in the future. These include comprehensive structural audits of buildings falling within the corporation’s jurisdiction, identification of unsafe constructions, and implementation of a time-bound programme for sealing and demolishing illegal structures.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE