The Supreme Court is looking at a wider intervention in the safety of PG (paying guest) accommodations, private hostels and student housing facilities following the building collapse in Delhi’s Satya Niketan area. The top court has agreed to hear the matter on September 10 and said its eventual directions could go beyond the national capital to cover similar establishments across the country.
It comes as concerns grow over structural and fire-safety conditions of buildings used to house students and other young residents. Satya Niketan has brought back the spotlight on residential properties allegedly modified or repurposed without structural assessment, approvals or safety clearances.
On Tuesday, Supreme Court appointed amicus curiae Ajit Kumar Sinha moved for urgent listing of an application in the illegal construction case. He sought permission to inspect sites and safety audit of private hostels, PG accommodation and other student housing facilities operating in Delhi.
Sinha’s submissions noted that many student accommodations operate from residential buildings which may have structural changes made to them (or unauthorised construction) or permitted use altered. If modifications are not done with engineering assessments and approvals then the buildings themselves could be compromised and risks increased for occupants.
The matter was taken up before a Bench headed by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah. Appearing for the authorities, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said Satya Niketan collapse was “a horrible incident”. He also told the court that Delhi High Court was already looking into several aspects of tragedy.
The Delhi High Court had ordered high level inquiry into the role of MCD; citywide safety audit of PG accommodations; information on outstation students and availability of hostel facilities in Delhi. The Solicitor General said that application before Supreme Court could therefore be transferred to High Court.
The Supreme Court did not transfer it and Justice Amanullah said the top court was thinking of widening the scope of proceedings. The Bench made it clear that this could be dealt with at a national level too (safety concerns surrounding student accommodation may no longer be treated as Delhi problem).
The wider intervention could also look at whether PGs and hostels across the country meet basic structural, fire and occupancy requirements; build plans; structural stability certificates; fire-safety arrangements; occupancy permissions; alterations to basements or other parts of buildings.
The Supreme Court’s move comes after a five-storey building in Satya Niketan used as boys’ PG collapsed and seven students died while several others were injured. It was decades old building and preliminary investigations have been done on alleged unauthorised alterations, work in basement and structural weaknesses.
The incident has also raised questions about the role of civic authorities and other institutions that regulate accommodation facilities. The building owner was arrested and MCD officials have been suspended as investigations continue into how the property was allowed to operate and whether warning signs or violations were ignored.
The Delhi High Court has separately said that “liability for such a tragedy may not necessarily rest with the owner of the property — questions can also be asked as to what role civic agencies, regulatory authorities and institutions play in ensuring accommodation provided to students is safe”.
The amicus curiae’s safety audit could therefore go beyond finding violations in individual buildings. It wants sanctioned building plans, structural stability, fire-safety compliance, occupancy permissions and alleged alterations (among others). A full exercise might identify buildings that are at risk before another tragedy occurs.
Thousands of students who live away from their hometowns have PGs and private hostels as part of their education journey. PG facilities are often close to colleges, universities and coaching centres but rapid expansion of private student housing has also brought challenges for regulation.
If the Supreme Court gives pan-India directions on Sept. 10 states and local authorities may be put under more pressure to systematically inspect student accommodation and enforce safety regulations they already have in place; proceedings could also lead authorities to create clearer accountability mechanisms for property owners and agencies that approve inspections.
The Satya Niketan collapse has therefore become more than an inquiry into one building. It’s become a question about whether students living in privately operated accommodations are being protected from structural and fire hazards. The Supreme Court’s decision on September 10 could determine if the tragedy results in a national framework for improving safety standards in PGs, hostels and other student housing facilities.
