SC says will not ‘disturb’ Satya Niketan collapse case before Delhi HC

Observing that it did not want to “disturb” proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court over the Satya Niketan building collapse, the Supreme Court on Thursday (September 10, 2026) declined to transfer the case to itself. It, however, directed the High Court to monitor compliance with its directives at short intervals.

An illegally constructed five-storey building being used as a paying guest (PG) facility in Delhi’s Satya Niketan collapsed on Sunday, leaving seven people dead and 12 injured.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan was hearing ongoing proceedings arising from a case in Tamil Nadu concerning violations of land-use norms and building bylaws. In March, the Bench had widened the scope of the proceedings and sought information from civic bodies in several State capitals, including Delhi, Lucknow, Jaipur, Chennai, and Kolkata, on action taken against similar violations.

Following the Satya Niketan tragedy, senior advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, the court-appointed amicus curiae, had filed a status report urging the Bench to order a time-bound safety audit of PG facilities, private hostels and other student accommodation in and around colleges and universities across Delhi.

On Thursday, Mr. Sinha informed the Bench that the Delhi High Court was separately hearing a petition seeking a comprehensive probe into the collapse and had, on Monday (September 7, 2026) ordered an inquiry into the tragedy as well as a safety inspection of PG facilities under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s (MCD) jurisdiction.

“The directions have been acted upon, and things are moving in the right direction, I must admit... I have been informed, my Lords, from my own sources that it is being acted upon,” Mr. Sinha said, urging the Bench to allow the High Court to continue monitoring compliance instead of transferring the proceedings to itself.

Acknowledging the need to ensure that remedial measures were not delayed, the Bench acceded to the amicus curiae’s suggestion and allowed the proceedings to continue before the High Court.

“We accept the suggestion of the learned amicus curiae, and for the present, do not disturb the position of the case before the High Court, which shall continue. The High Court is requested to monitor the case at short intervals,” the Bench said.

It, however, underlined that the High Court must ensure that its earlier directions to the MCD to act against illegal constructions and the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes were not “diluted”.

The development came after the Bench initially turned down an oral request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government and the MCD, not to transfer the proceedings to itself. Mr. Mehta contended that the Satya Niketan tragedy was essentially a “local issue”, while drawing the court’s attention to the measures already undertaken by the civic body.

“Since it is a local issue... if it can be left to the Delhi High Court. The MCD has taken several steps. We can file a report also,” Mr. Mehta submitted.

The Bench, however, refused to budge, asking the law officer to “have faith” and assuring him that his “apprehensions” would be addressed, before eventually acceding to the request after it was endorsed by the amicus curiae.

On Thursday, Mr. Sinha also apprised the Bench that a court-appointed committee had carried out inspections pursuant to its earlier directions and identified several buildings in Saidulajab, Saket, and Lajpat Nagar as potentially unsafe.

“During the inspection, we found that some of the buildings were housing more than 500 people...” Mr. Sinha said, adding that demolition of illegal structures had begun in areas including Lajpat Nagar and Sarojini Nagar.

Recognising the dangers posed by such overcrowding, the Bench pointed to the lack of adequate access points in illegally constructed buildings, particularly those housing coaching centres.

“Coaching centres are the worst... They pack them like sardines, hundreds in one room, no proper ingress and egress,” Justice Amanullah remarked.

The Bench accordingly posted the matter for hearing on September 15 to review compliance affidavits filed by civic authorities on its earlier directions to identify illegal constructions within their respective jurisdictions and take action “without any delay”. The authorities had also been directed to clear public spaces and roads of stray cattle.

In his status report, Mr. Sinha had also drawn attention to an earlier building collapse in Satya Niketan in April 2022, which killed two people and injured four others. The recurrence of a fatal collapse in the same locality, he said, raised concerns over the effectiveness of existing inspection mechanisms.

The report also called for scrutiny of whether PG facilities and other student accommodation were operating in accordance with sanctioned building plans, permissible land use and structural and fire-safety requirements.

“The extent to which such premises comply with sanctioned building plans, applicable building bylaws, permissible land use, structural safety requirements and fire-safety norms requires verification by the competent authorities,” the report stated.