A vacation bench of the Allahabad High Court has reprimanded the Uttar Pradesh government over its failure to distribute compensation to the kin of those who perished in a stampede at the Mahakumbh. The court observed that four months have elapsed since the incident on 29 January, yet not a single ex-gratia payment has been delivered. The delay, the judges said, signifies “apathy to the plight of citizens” and falls short of the state’s responsibilities.
The two-judge bench—Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Sandeep Jain—heard a petition filed by Uday Pratap Singh, whose wife died amid the chaos. While the state announced ₹25 lakh compensation per deceased, none has reached affected families, including the petitioner. The court acknowledged the government’s responsibility to protect life, but found its response “untenable” and “indifferent”.
Judicial criticism intensified over serious procedural lapses. The deceased’s body was handed to her family on 5 February from the mortuary of Motilal Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj, without undergoing an autopsy or inquest. The court flagged this as a profound violation of protocol, emphasising that even the family was not informed whether she was admitted alive or dead. The absence of any official notice regarding hospital documentation or police action in the event of an unclaimed body deepens the court’s concern.
Highlighting the human dimension, the court expressed distress that bereaved families “forced to beg” for compensation, having lost their loved ones through no fault of their own. It stressed that once compensation was publicly announced, timely and dignified disbursement should have followed as a matter of course.
In directing administrative accountability, the court mandated that the state submit detailed affidavits by 18 July. These must specify the number of ex-gratia claims received, approved and pending, including dates of acceptance and settlement. Additionally, all hospitals and medical authorities involved during the Kumbh period—from 28 January to 26 February—must disclose patient admissions, death reports, and handling of bodies, including doctor and staff details.
The bench underlined the state’s dual roles—as both trustee of citizens and as event organiser. The Kumbh Mela, conducted under state supervision, imposed a duty to safeguard pilgrims and render remedy in the event of failures. The state’s lack of transparency and lethargy in addressing compensation obligations struck the judges as a serious dereliction.
On 7 June, the court remarked it was “alarming” that no compensation had been forthcoming despite the passing months since the tragedy. It ruled that the petitioner’s submission would be treated as an official request or representation, eliminating further procedural hurdles.
The petition concerns the wife of Uday Pratap Singh, who sustained critical injuries in the stampede at Sangam during the Mauni Amavasya. While state records indicate 30 deaths and about 60 injuries, media reports suggest the toll could be higher. The court noted the likelihood of underreporting, compelling scrutiny of all claims filed.
The broader context points to structural deficiencies in the handling of mass gatherings. The court’s order brings to the fore inadequate documentation, poor inter-agency coordination and lack of accountability. As public interest litigation, it underscores the rights of pilgrims and victims amidst large state-managed events.
Justice Singh characterised the state’s stance as “unstable”, reflecting indifference to citizen suffering. The court observed that once identification of the claimant’s family was possible, the burden should not have been shifted onto distraught kin who had already endured immeasurable loss.
Among the details sought, the court instructed hospitals to clarify whether bodies or patients were admitted alive or dead, along with time-stamps and registration information. Furthermore, identification of which public functionaries attended to the deceased, and the chronology of medical interventions, must be made transparent.
The requirement to list all pending and settled compensation claims, and dates of disposal, aims to hold the state to account. It will allow determination of whether procedural delays were systemic or case-specific. The July hearing will reveal whether the government has responded adequately.
The court’s rebuke carries moral weight. It points to systemic failures: neglecting to inform a suffering spouse, failing to observe forensic norms, and delaying compensation as families struggle to cope. Such omissions have compounded tragedy, violating public trust.
In 2013, a similar Kumbh stampede near Prayagraj had claimed 36 lives. Following recommendations, the government claimed to have improved crowd management. Yet this incident indicates recurring vulnerabilities. Scholars argue that risk mitigation in mass events requires robust health systems, clear protocols, and proactive responsibility to victims. This case offers a test of whether reforms translate into action.
Uday Pratap Singh, hailing from Karaunda in Bihar’s Kaimur district, was compelled to complete medico-legal formalities himself. The court noted that neither inquest nor post-mortem happened at the state-run facility, forcing the family to undertake these procedures in Bihar.
The court’s orders are more than administrative tasks—they are judicial insistence on dignity. The delayed compensation, without dignity or explanation, violates norms of governance and justice. The case underscores that administrative failure not only costs lives but also erodes institutional credibility.
As the July deadline approaches, stakeholders—including state government, local authorities, hospitals and district administration—must submit information. The upcoming hearing could signal a shift: from judicial admonition to enforced action.
India’s Anti‑Terror Mission Secures Stronger International Backing 