Introduction:

The Delhi High Court recently criticized the Delhi government’s “freebie” policies following a tragic basement flooding in the city’s Rajendra Nagar area, which resulted in the deaths of three civil services aspirants. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the government’s focus on providing freebies has left it without the necessary funds to upgrade the city’s infrastructure, particularly its drainage system, to accommodate the city’s rapidly growing population. This case, titled Kutumb v. State & Ors., seeks the constitution of a High-Level Committee to investigate the incident and the state of infrastructure in Delhi.

Background:

The incident occurred at Rau’s IAS coaching center in Old Rajendra Nagar, where three civil services aspirants lost their lives due to basement flooding. The petitioner organization, Kutumb, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking accountability and the formation of a committee to probe the incident. They highlighted similar incidents in Mukerjee Nagar and Vivek Vihar, emphasizing that judicial directions to civic authorities had not been acted upon.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Negligence and Inaction: The petitioner’s counsel, representing Kutumb, argued that despite prior warnings and complaints about the illegal operation of Rau’s IAS coaching center, no preventive measures were taken by the authorities. Letters and reminders sent to the government were ignored, which, if acted upon, could have prevented the tragedy.
2. Historical Neglect: The counsel pointed out that the city’s infrastructure, particularly the drainage system, has not been upgraded to match the current population and urban demands. The petitioner argued that the city’s planning was based on an outdated population estimate of 6-7 lakh people, whereas the actual population now stands at approximately 3.3 crore.
3. Judicial Directions Ignored: The petitioner noted that similar incidents had occurred previously, and despite judicial directions, the civic authorities failed to take concrete steps to prevent such disasters. The petitioner called for the establishment of district-level committees to identify and act against illegal commercial constructions.

Government and MCD’s Arguments:

1. Efforts Undertaken: The counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) argued that inspections had been conducted, and notices were issued to around 75 coaching institutes, leading to the closure of 35 and the sealing of 25. They emphasized that actions were being taken, albeit slowly.
2. Blame Shifting: The MCD counsel contended that the entire blame was unfairly placed on MCD when the initial complaint was sent to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), which delayed action. The counsel detailed the timeline of bureaucratic processing, highlighting that the complaint was moved through various channels before reaching the MCD, by which time it was too late.
3. Historical Constraints: The government’s counsel highlighted that the city’s infrastructure, including its drainage system, was indeed outdated but emphasized that ongoing efforts were being made to address these issues. The counsel argued that the problem was complex, involving multiple agencies and layers of approval.

Court’s Judgment:

The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, issued a scathing critique of the government’s handling of infrastructure and urban planning. The court’s observations and directives included:

• Critique of Freebie Culture: The bench criticized the Delhi government’s freebie policies, suggesting that they had depleted the resources needed for essential infrastructure upgrades. ACJ Manmohan remarked that the government’s focus on freebies left it without the funds necessary to maintain and upgrade the city’s drainage system, which is crucial in preventing such tragedies.
• Failure of Civic Authorities: The court noted a “major disconnect” between the city’s infrastructure and its present-day needs. The bench pointed out that while multi-storey buildings were being permitted, there was no corresponding upgrade in the drainage system, leading to catastrophic failures during heavy rains.
• Accountability and Responsibility: The court questioned why senior officers had not been held accountable, pointing out that while junior officers were terminated, the responsibility also lay with senior officials who failed to supervise properly. The court stressed the need for senior officials to actively inspect and oversee urban planning and infrastructure projects.
• Systemic Issues: The bench highlighted systemic issues within the civic authorities, noting delays and bureaucratic red tape that hinder effective action. The court observed that projects requiring approval were often stuck in limbo due to the absence of a functioning standing committee or delays in cabinet meetings.
• Immediate Actions Ordered: The court directed the Delhi government’s counsel to ensure that the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and Investigating Officer (IO) are present in court with all relevant files at the next hearing. The MCD Commissioner was also ordered to be personally present in court.
• Formation of Committees: The court emphasized the need for forming district-level committees to investigate illegal commercial constructions and submit action taken reports. This was seen as a necessary step to ensure compliance with safety norms and prevent future incidents.