The Allahabad High Court addressed a petition concerning compensation arising out of a fatal stampede that occurred during the Mahakumbh Mela and issued clear directions to the concerned authorities to bring the process of determining compensation to a conclusion within a fixed timeframe. The Court made it explicit that the pendency of an inquiry by a Commission constituted by the State Government could not be used as a justification to indefinitely delay the decision on compensation payable to the family of a deceased victim. The bench underscored that once the State had acknowledged the occurrence of the tragedy and announced compensation for those who lost their lives, the administrative authorities were under an obligation to act with reasonable promptitude and sensitivity in extending that relief to eligible claimants. The Court therefore imposed a strict deadline of thirty days for the authorities concerned to finalize and decide the compensation claim of the petitioner, while cautioning that non-compliance with this direction would invite serious consequences.
The proceedings before the High Court arose from the death of a woman who was caught in a stampede during the Mahakumbh Mela. The incident occurred at a time when a massive gathering of pilgrims had assembled at the Sangam area to participate in ritual bathing, resulting in overcrowding and chaos. During the surge of devotees, a stampede took place that led to the death of several individuals and injuries to many others. In the aftermath of the incident, the State Government announced that ex gratia compensation would be paid to the families of those who had died in the tragedy. Despite this announcement, the petitioner, who was the husband of one of the victims who succumbed to injuries sustained in the stampede, approached the High Court alleging that the compensation process had remained unresolved for an unreasonably long period.
According to the facts placed before the Court, the petitioner’s wife had sustained serious injuries during the stampede and was taken to a government medical facility for treatment. She later died as a result of those injuries. The petitioner contended that despite the clear link between the injuries suffered in the stampede and his wife’s death, the authorities failed to conclude the formalities required for granting compensation. He further brought to the Court’s attention the manner in which the authorities handled the aftermath of his wife’s death, including allegations that her body was handed over to the family without a proper inquest or post-mortem examination being conducted. These aspects had earlier drawn adverse remarks from the Court, which had expressed concern over the apparent procedural lapses and the lack of sensitivity displayed by the officials in dealing with the bereaved family.
When the matter was initially taken up by the High Court, the bench had expressed strong displeasure over the delay in disbursing compensation and had observed that once compensation had been declared by the State, there was no justification for keeping the family of a deceased victim waiting indefinitely. The Court had described the approach of the authorities as unsatisfactory and had emphasized that the right to compensation in such circumstances was not a matter of charity but flowed from the State’s own decision and obligation. The bench had directed the concerned officials to file personal affidavits explaining the steps taken to process the compensation claim and the reasons for the delay, thereby placing responsibility directly on the officers involved.
In subsequent hearings, the State Government informed the Court that a Commission of Inquiry had been constituted to examine the circumstances surrounding the stampede and that the inquiry process was still underway. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the Commission had recorded the statement of the petitioner and was in the process of examining whether there was a direct nexus between the stampede and the death of his wife. The authorities also indicated that the scope of the inquiry extended beyond a single claim, as statements of other victims’ family members and dependents were also being recorded, and that this had contributed to the prolongation of the process. The State suggested that the inquiry timeline had been extended in what it described as the larger public interest.
The High Court, however, was not persuaded by these submissions as a valid basis for further delay in deciding the petitioner’s claim. The bench observed that while a detailed inquiry into the causes of the stampede and the accountability of officials might require time, the determination of compensation for an individual victim’s family could not be kept in abeyance indefinitely on that ground alone. The Court emphasized that the purpose of announcing compensation in cases of mass tragedies was to provide timely financial relief to families who had suffered sudden and irreparable loss, and that this objective would be defeated if the process was allowed to languish without conclusion.
The Court noted that in an earlier order it had already laid down clear expectations regarding the steps to be taken by the authorities and the filing of affidavits to demonstrate progress in the compensation process. Despite these directions, the matter had not reached a logical end. The bench therefore concluded that it was necessary to impose a definitive timeline to ensure compliance and accountability. It accordingly directed the Commission of Inquiry and the Mela Authority to take a final decision on the petitioner’s compensation claim within thirty days. The Court further directed that the decision taken should be placed on record through an affidavit filed by the State’s counsel, thereby enabling the Court to verify compliance with its order.
The High Court also made it clear that its directions were not to be treated as mere formalities. By stating that it would take a serious view of any failure to adhere to the timeline, the bench signaled that continued inaction or non-compliance could result in adverse judicial consequences for the officials concerned. This observation underscored the Court’s intent to ensure that its orders were implemented in letter and spirit and that the rights of the petitioner were not rendered illusory by bureaucratic delay.
Throughout its order, the Court reiterated the principle that administrative processes and inquiries, however important, cannot override the immediate need to provide relief to victims of public tragedies. The bench emphasized that the existence of an inquiry commission does not suspend the State’s obligation to act on its own declarations, particularly when the basic facts relating to the death of a victim are not in serious dispute. The Court observed that while the findings of the Commission might have relevance for determining responsibility, fixing liability, or formulating future safeguards, they could not be used as a pretext to withhold compensation that had already been promised.
The order reflects the Court’s broader concern with ensuring that victims and their families are treated with dignity and fairness in the aftermath of disasters involving large public gatherings. The High Court highlighted the need for administrative sensitivity and efficiency, especially in cases where families are already grappling with emotional trauma and financial hardship due to the loss of a loved one. By insisting on a strict deadline and continued judicial oversight, the Court sought to reinforce the message that delays in such matters are unacceptable and that accountability must be enforced at every level.
The matter was directed to be listed again for further hearing after the expiry of the stipulated period, specifically to review the compliance affidavit and the decision taken by the authorities on the compensation claim. This listing was intended to ensure that the directions issued were not merely advisory but were followed through with concrete action. The Court’s approach demonstrates its willingness to remain seized of the matter until it is satisfied that justice has been done and that the petitioner has received a clear and reasoned decision on his claim.
In essence, the Allahabad High Court’s order serves as a reaffirmation of the principle that compensation to victims of public tragedies must be timely, transparent, and free from unnecessary procedural hurdles. By drawing a clear line between the process of inquiry and the obligation to provide relief, the Court has emphasized that the two can and must proceed independently, without one being used to stall the other. The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of citizens against administrative inertia and in ensuring that promises made by the State are honored within a reasonable timeframe.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.