Uphaar tragedy to pothole deaths, how courts have invoked ‘strict liability’ to protect right to life

Bombay HC, in landmark ruling addressing civic apathy, last week directed that victims of pothole accidents be compensated & amount be recovered from those responsible for negligence.

Representational image of a pothole in Hyderabad | ANI

New Delhi: In a landmark ruling addressing civic apathy, the Bombay High Court last week linked pothole-related deaths to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees the right to life. It directed that mandatory compensation be paid to victims of pothole-related accidents and that the amount be recovered from civic officers, engineers or contractors responsible for the negligence.

In doing so, the court resurrected a principle from classic tort law: of strict liability, holding a party responsible for harm caused by their actions.

“Unless those responsible for pothole-related deaths and injuries are made personally accountable, and are compelled to bear monetary liability from their own pockets, they will not understand the gravity of the issue,” the division bench of Justices Revati M. Dere and Sandesh D. Patil observed in its 77-page judgement.

The court declared that failure to provide safe roads amounted to violation of Article 21, holding that such systemic negligence cannot be tolerated in a city like Mumbai. The bench found “no seriousness” on the part of authorities to address civic issues despite years of monitoring and directives since the PIL it was deciding was initiated in 2013.

The judges further directed that Rs 6 lakh compensation be paid to families of those killed in accidents caused by potholes or open manholes, and Rs 50,000-Rs 2.5 lakh for injuries, with the amount recoverable from negligent officials. Compensation, the court held, was not merely remedial but a constitutional imperative, rooted in the doctrine of strict liability for breach of fundamental rights.

Hearings in the matter had begun in 2013 when Justice G.S. Patel approached the Bombay High Court to highlight deteriorating conditions of the roads in Mumbai and the severe accidents that two-wheeler riders faced on such roads. The court had taken suo motu cognisance of the matter.

The strict liability doctrine

The Bombay High Court’s order, drawn from a deeper constitutional and tort law principle of strict liability, holds a person or authority liable for harm caused by their acts or omissions, regardless of intent or negligence.

In essence, if harm results from a dangerous or inherently hazardous activity under one’s control, the responsible entity must bear the consequences.

The concept was born in 1868 in the English case of Rylands vs Fletcher, where it was held that anyone who brings and keeps something on their land that is likely to cause harm if it escapes is liable for any resulting damage, regardless of fault or negligence. Over time, Indian courts expanded this principle to ensure public accountability, especially where the state’s negligence leads to injury or loss of life.

It is pertinent to note the key differences between almost similar sounding doctrines: strict liability and absolute liability.

Both doctrines impose responsibility without requiring proof of negligence or intent, but are different in scope and exceptions.

The strict liability principle allows certain defences or exceptions such as acts of God, acts of third parties or the plaintiff’s own fault, which can absolve the defendant of liability. In India, the judgement in the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy case became a benchmark for the strict liability principle.

The Delhi High Court in 2003 awarded compensation to those who died during the cinema hall fire that was to be paid jointly by the hall’s owner, Ansal brothers, the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and the licensing authority.

As for absolute liability, the Supreme Court in 1987 delivered a pathbreaking decision in M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (1987) following the oleum gas leak case. Here, the court ruled that enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities owe an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure no harm results, and no exceptions or defences can be claimed.

In essence, while strict liability acknowledges limited escape routes for the defendant, absolute liability is uncompromising and total, regardless of the cause or circumstances. No exceptions such as acts of God or third-party interference are allowed under absolute liability.

Constitutional remedy

Over the years, the Supreme Court has treated compensation under Articles 32 or 226 as a constitutional remedy, not merely a civil claim. This means a tort claim can be made not just under the Law of Torts (which is primarily concerned with redressal of wrongful civil actions by awarding compensation), but even under the constitutional provisions that deal with fundamental rights.

This approach was crystallised in cases like Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa (1993) where the court held that the state is strictly liable for custodial death. In this case the Supreme Court invoked Article 32 to compensate the custodial death victim’s family.

It thus underlined that administrative inaction or systemic negligence by public authorities can attract strict liability where citizens’ fundamental rights are breached.

The Delhi Uphaar tragedy remains one of India’s worst fire disasters, exposing shocking lapses in public safety and regulatory oversight when a transformer in the cinema’s parking lot leaked oil and caught fire, which spread to parked cars and then into the theatre through the air-conditioning ducts.

Within minutes, smoke and toxic fumes filled the hall, trapping moviegoers who could not escape due to blocked exits, locked doors and non-functional emergency systems. Unauthorised alterations by the theatre owners had narrowed aisles and obstructed escape routes. As many as 59 people died, mostly due to asphyxiation, and over 100 were injured.

In the aftermath, the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) filed a writ petition with the Delhi High Court, citing safety violations by theatre owners and negligence by public authorities such as the MCD and DVB. The prolonged legal battle centred on questions of accountability, particularly whether public officials could be held liable under principles of strict and vicarious liability for failing to enforce safety regulations.

Investigations revealed multiple violations of building and fire safety norms, and years of official indifference that allowed the hazardous conditions to persist.

In its final ruling, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the Delhi High Court judgement in the case, holding the Ansal brothers, Gopal and Sushil Ansal, 85% liable for compensation and the DVB 15% liable, while exonerating the MCD and the licensing authority on the ground that their inaction was not the direct cause of the tragedy.

The court ordered monetary compensation to victims’ families and directed that a trauma centre be built in their memory, though the project remains unfulfilled.

The Uphaar case remains a defining example of systemic negligence and diluted accountability, prompting continuing debate on how far courts should extend the doctrine of strict liability to hold public officials personally responsible for preventable tragedies.

This reasoning finds an echo in the Bombay High Court’s pothole ruling, where the bench clearly stated that “tangible consequences must follow institutional failure”, and that mere reminders or reprimands are no longer sufficient deterrents.

Other similar rulings

The Kerala High Court this July issued a similar warning to government agencies over unsafe roads, declaring that the right to travel safely is a facet of Article 21. It ordered regular audits and held engineers personally accountable for recurring road accidents.

Last year, the Madras High Court had also invoked the principle of strict and vicarious liability to hold the state responsible for a falling tree that killed a pedestrian, noting that civic authorities are under a continuing duty to maintain safe public spaces.

Similarly, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2019 held municipal officers personally liable for failing to act on complaints about open drains that led to fatalities, applying the concept of constitutional tort to fix accountability.

The Bombay High Court’s ruling therefore does more than address potholes as it reasserts the rule of strict liability in governance reform. By insisting that compensation come from the pockets of negligent officers, it shifts the burden to those who fail their public duty.

With this judgement, the concept of strict liability is further strengthened, upholding the accountability of those who are already in positions of responsibility. It also affirms the constitutional principle, ensuring that the state and its agents cannot evade responsibility when their inaction violates citizens’ fundamental rights.

(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)