How long can Delhi continue to treat building and fire safety matters to be addressed post mortem? The collapse of a student accommodation in Satya Niketan on Sunday, where renovation and basement work was reportedly underway, is another reminder of how poorly regulation works in the national capital. It has now emerged that the building did not have construction sanctions and a fire safety certificate. As a result, seven lives have been lost, while five others were injured. The first question is why such a building was allowed to operate. The Delhi High Court correctly expressed concern about the regulatory practices of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
This is not the first such case. In May, six people died when an unauthorised building collapsed in Saidulajab. An inquiry found that the MCD knew about illegal construction, failed to act on complaints and fabricated inspection records. In June, 23 people died in a fire at a Malviya Nagar bed-and-breakfast that was authorised for six rooms, but was running 26 rooms without a fire licence. The Mundka fire in 2022 killed 27 people. The Karol Bagh hotel fire in 2019 killed 17 people.
There have been committees, inquiries and recommendations after these incidents. In June, the Supreme Court’s amicus curiae asked for directions to municipal authorities to conduct structural audits and seal or demolish illegal structures. After the Malviya Nagar fire, the government announced committees to survey and seal unsafe buildings. Delhi’s disaster management plans also called for identifying vulnerable buildings and enforcing construction regulations.
So why does the system keep failing citizens? Delhi’s new Master Plan for the next 20 years again proposes measures to prevent hazardous, unplanned and non-compliant structures—similar to the rules issued in 2007 that have evidently not been strictly enforced. What guarantees that this time it will be different?
What Delhi needs is a system to check building approvals, fire clearances, structural safety certificates and violations. Buildings found unsafe should not continue to operate while files move between departments. Responsibility must be fixed for inspections, approvals and failures to act. With governance going digital, lack of access to updated information on building approvals, violations and inspections can no longer be an excuse. A city cannot call a building disaster an accident when the risks were visible, documented and repeatedly warned about. The credibility of regulation itself is at stake.