Delhi High Court declines to entertain PIL on fire safety norms

The Delhi HC declined a PIL on fire safety in hotels and restaurants but directed it be treated as a representation to authorities. The court asked them to devise an action plan and take a decision in accordance with the law with expedition.

HC directs fire safety PIL be treated as representation

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking wide-ranging directions on fire safety in hotels, clubs and restaurants across the national capital, but directed that the petition be treated as a representation to the competent authorities, to be decided in accordance with law and with expedition.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. The Bench noted that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had first approached the concerned authorities before invoking the PIL jurisdiction. "We dispose of this writ petition with a direction that it shall be treated as a representation by the petitioner," the Chief Justice observed. The Court further directed that the authorities take a decision under the applicable laws and rules with expedition, and also devise an appropriate action plan to put effective safety measures in place so that fire incidents are avoided.

Court notes vague nature of pleadings

At the same time, the Court expressed difficulty with the nature of the pleadings, observing that such petitions are often "so general and vague in nature with generalised averments," which makes judicial scrutiny at the PIL stage challenging.

PIL cites extensive fire safety framework, incidents

The petition was moved by Arpit Bhargava, a practising advocate, against the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). The PIL relied on an extensive list of dates and events tracing the statutory fire safety framework in Delhi, including the enforcement of the Delhi Fire Services Act, 2007, the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010, and the adoption of mandatory fire safety norms under the National Building Code, particularly Part 4 dealing with fire and life safety.

It also referred to the Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016, which incorporate mandatory fire safety provisions relating to exits, stairways, access for fire engines, refuge areas and fire safety equipment, especially in high-rise buildings. The plea highlighted that despite this regulatory framework, several fire-related incidents were reported across Delhi in 2024 and 2025, particularly in restaurants and similar establishments, allegedly due to violations of fire safety protocols and a lack of regular inspections.

It also referred to reports that directions for fire safety audits of establishments had been issued, but no concrete outcomes were visible. The petition drew specific attention to a tragic nightclub fire incident in Goa in December 2025, in which 25 people lost their lives, and alleged that the establishment was operating without valid licences and safety norms, an incident cited to underline the potential risk posed by similar violations in Delhi.

Petitioner seeks comprehensive audits, compensation scheme

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner, Sarthak Sharma and Mohit Yadav, submitted that inspections of as many as 156 premises had been carried out following the Goa incident. The PIL sought directions for comprehensive fire safety audits of all hotels, clubs and restaurants in Delhi, monthly inspections and remedial measures, and the framing and implementation of a compensation or damage scheme for families of deceased or injured victims, with defaulting establishments being made liable to pay compensation.

Authorities to take a reasoned decision

Disposing of the matter, the High Court left it to the authorities to consider the representation, examine the issues raised, including enforcement of existing fire safety laws and preventive mechanisms and take a reasoned decision within a reasonable time frame, in accordance with law.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)