Hearing a plea arising from the Satya Niketan PG building collapse that killed seven, the Supreme Court declined to take over the Delhi High Court proceedings but directed continued monitoring, focusing on whether purely residential areas are being misused for PG accommodations, coaching centres and other commercial purposes.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, hearing a plea arising from the Satya Niketan paying-guest (PG) building collapse in which seven persons died and twelve were injured, said it would keep its focus on the misuse of land classified as purely residential, while declining to disturb the ongoing Delhi High Court proceedings on the safety of student housing, and directing that the authorities also file a separate compliance report before it on the broader issues [in re: safety audit of PG accommodations and student housing].
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan heard the matter, which had been listed after a motion brought to the Court’s notice the tragic collapse. The plea sought urgent directions for the inspection and safety audit of private PG accommodations, hostels and other student-housing facilities across Delhi.
‘People should feel a real change on the ground’
Justice Amanullah made clear that the Court’s immediate concern was the unauthorised commercial use of residential land and its consequences for ordinary residents. He observed that in residential areas, “children are unable to play, parents cannot even walk freely, and several other problems arise,” and that “people should be able to feel a real change on the ground.” The Court said its focus would, for now, be limited to verifying the permitted use of land, particularly whether areas earmarked as purely residential were being used in violation of that classification.
When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that, being essentially a local issue, the matter could be left to the Delhi High Court, Justice Amanullah asked the law officer to repose faith in the Court’s approach, remarking: “Mr Mehta, after two months you will understand what we are saying. Have faith in us. We know what objective we are trying to achieve, and I think we are both moving in the same direction.”
ALSO READ: No GST on Hostels for Students: Supreme Court Says ‘Ultimate Use Is Residential’
‘Packed in like sardines’
Senior Advocate Ajit Sinha, appearing as Amicus Curiae, submitted that the present proceedings arose from the Supreme Court’s order of March 25, and acknowledged, “irrespective of my role as amicus,” that the Delhi High Court’s order in the Satya Niketan matter had set things in motion and that the directions were now being acted upon. The concern, he said, was not limited to PG accommodations but extended to gyms, coaching centres, BPOs and other commercial uses operating from such premises.
Underlining the human cost of the overcrowding, the Court observed that in some places “people are packed in like sardines, hundreds crammed into a single room.” The Amicus informed the Court that demolition action had already begun in areas such as Lajpat Nagar and Sarojini Nagar, and urged that even if the matter were transferred, the Supreme Court should continue to monitor implementation, cautioning that “once judicial attention shifts, the progress may again come to a halt.” The Court agreed that continued oversight was necessary.
The order: High Court to continue, Supreme Court to keep watch
Dictating the order, Justice Amanullah recorded that the matter had been listed after the tragic Satya Niketan building collapse in which seven persons lost their lives and twelve others were injured, and that the Delhi High Court had already passed directions requiring the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to carry out an exercise and submit a report, with that matter next listed before the High Court on September 25. The Amicus had submitted that, pursuant to those directions, matters were moving in the right direction, and that inspections had already been carried out in Delhi and Lucknow, including in Lajpat Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Sarojini Nagar and Aliganj in Lucknow.
The Court noted that while the High Court had taken up the issue in the context of the hostel tragedy, the present Supreme Court proceedings were broader and already encompassed such concerns, including the action to be taken by the authorities and the reports to be filed from time to time. Rather than transfer the High Court proceedings and tag them with the matter before it, the Court chose to let both run in parallel:
“We accept the suggestion of the Amicus Curiae and will not disturb the proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court. The High Court may continue to hear the matter and is requested to monitor it at short intervals.”
The Court directed that the concerned parties file affidavits and reports on compliance with its earlier directions, particularly those in its orders of March 25 and August 5, and that the compliance report specifically address the directions in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the March 25 order. The matter was listed next before the Supreme Court on September 15.
Why the hearing matters
The proceedings illustrate a considered approach to concurrent jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and a High Court over the same subject. Rather than pull the Satya Niketan matter up to itself and risk duplicating, or stalling, the momentum the Delhi High Court had already generated, the Court left the local, fact-intensive enforcement with the High Court while retaining supervisory oversight through periodic compliance reports on the broader, pan-city issues. That division, the High Court driving ground-level inspections and demolitions, the Supreme Court holding the wider policy and monitoring role, is designed to ensure that the reform outlasts the immediate public attention the tragedy attracted, a concern the Amicus expressly raised.
Beyond the procedural choreography, the hearing reflects a substantive concern with the systemic misuse of residential neighbourhoods for high-density commercial and student housing, a pattern that the collapse threw into tragic relief. The Court’s focus on land-use classification, whether purely residential areas are being converted, unchecked, into overcrowded PGs, coaching hubs and commercial establishments, goes to the root of why such buildings become unsafe: structures never designed or sanctioned for such occupancy are packed far beyond their capacity. By anchoring the inquiry in permitted land use and demanding continued compliance reporting, the Court has signalled that its interest lies not merely in responding to one collapse but in correcting the regulatory failure that made it possible. The next hearing on September 15 will test whether the authorities’ reports show that change being felt, in the Court’s words, “on the ground.”
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan
Date of Hearing: September 10, 2026