Uphaar Fire Tragedy: Supreme Court Permits Ansal Theatres To Move Trial Court For De-Sealing Of Cinema Hall

“If the appellant makes an application within the meaning of Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the concerned Trial court, with regard to the de-sealing/release of the (Uphaar) theatre in question, a decision will be taken by the Trial Court in accordance with law and also bearing in mind the stand taken by the CBI, Delhi Police and the Respondent Association. The decision will be taken as early as possible, within a period of ten weeks with a copy of this order along with the application”, the order pronounced by a bench of Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, said.

The Bench was hearing a plea moved by Ansal Theaters and Club hotels Pvt. Ltd. seeking the de-sealing of the theatre. In 1997, the Uphaar fire tragedy killed over 59 people and 103 people were injured—all of which happened owing to change in the seating arrangement which blocked one of the emergency-exits.

The plea moved in 2010 stated that even after the victims were paid the compensation due, the theatre and its premises were not returned to them. Last week, the Court had the sought CBI’s response in the plea.

During the hearing today, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appearing for the Delhi Police and the Central Bureau of Investigation said that the agencies do not have any claim over the property.

ASG Natraj said this after the Court posed the question to him.

“According to them, the property does not belong to you, the CBI or the Delhi Police. So, do you have any objection in de-sealing the property?”, the court asked.

“We can't have any claim over the property as we are investigating agencies”, Natraj replied while adding that there would be multiple claims seeking custody of the theatre which one would know for sure only after the trial is over. Also, the appropriate forum that can allow the de-sealing of the property is the concerned Trial Court, he said while relying on top court precedents.

The  Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT), represented by its Neelam Krishnamoorthy, was also allowed by the Court to make their stand known to the trial court with regard to the plea to de-seal the property.

The counsel appearing for the appellants said now that the trial in the main case is over, the cinema hall, which was sealed nearly 17 years ago, should be de-sealed. The CBI, which has probed and prosecuted the two owners in the case, had earlier opposed the de-sealing and release of the cinema hall till the completion of the entire trial.

“As far as the main litigation consisting of the criminal trial where the former directors of the appellant company appeared to have been arrayed as the accused…the curtains have been drawn by the final verdict of this court (in 2015)”, the court’s order recorded.

Apart from the punishment, the accused were asked to deposit Rs 60 crores, Rs 30 crores each—for setting up a trauma centre in Delhi, the Court was told.

The appellants confirmed that Rs 60 crores was deposited in line with the court’s order. Also, approx. Rs 10.5 crores which includes interest was deposited with the Delhi High Court. So, there can be no objection with regard to the de-sealing of property, the appellants argued.

The Court also took into consideration the Apex Court’s earlier order which held that it would be inappropriate for the High Court to decide the application on merits and thus, asked the Trial Court to decide if any appropriate application is moved.

On April 20, the Apex Court ruled in favour of the ex IPS officer Amod Kumar Kanth in the connection with a case pertaining to the Uphaar fire tragedy. The Court set aside the Magistrate’s order taking cognisance of a complaint against Kanth, who allegedly did not take action against “extra seats” in the Uphaar theatre hall which had blocked the emergency exit at the right-hand side of the balcony. A Bench headed by of Justice KM Joseph, passed the order after noting that the necessary sanction under section 197 of the Code was not obtained before summons was issued to him.

Case Title: Ansal Theatres And Clubotels P. Ltd. v. State Crl.A. No. 603/2010

Click Here To Read/Download Order