Medical treatment in Delhi: Only for Delhi citizens?

Reading time: 8-10 minutes.

The chaotic scenario during COVID-19 has been seen as a threat to the global economy of the country. The proliferation of this virus has caused severe amounts of losses to the government. The coronavirus cases are daily increasing on its rapid speed causing more turmoil to the residents as well as to the government of Delhi. The hospitals in Delhi amid coronavirus pandemic are unable to execute the proper functioning due to insufficient amount of available beds. There emerges a great deal to scrutinize the condition of Delhi coronavirus cases thoroughly and explicate a well versed plan to manage this situation systematically. With the viewpoint of this, the Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal announced that all the government and private hospitals in Delhi to be made available to the citizens of Delhi only. This decision has been criticized by many renowned personalities.

The Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal on 8th June, 2020, Monday revoked the decision of Aam Aadmi Party(AAP) Government. The Anil Baijal overrules the order of Delhi government stating that no non-residents should be denied medical treatment of any kind.


On 7th June, 2020 the Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal announced that availability of bed would be granted only to the resident citizens of Delhi. This decision excludes everyone to avail the treatments who are the residents of outside the territory of Delhi. Arvind Kejriwal stated that the state government has a total of 10,000 beds which would be made available to use only by the residents of Delhi. While the Union government beds can be accessible to all the residents of the country because he didn’t have any kind of jurisdiction over the union government  beds. Due to rapid increase in Covid-19 cases this decision has been taken by the chief minister of Delhi.

Facts of the Issue

The COVID-19 pandemic situation prevailing in Delhi and rapid increase of cases daily are the major cause of factors to bring certain decisions by the governments which are not suitable to all the citizens. The Chief Minister of Delhi is of the view on both the sides regarding the granting of hospital beds that whether it should be granted to only residents of Delhi or to everyone including those who are not the citizens of Delhi. With this view the government has sought suggestions from the residents. Arvind Kejriwal states that based on the applications received regarding the availability of beds issue. The majority of citizens are in the favor that Delhi healthcare infrastructure is to be used only for the residents of Delhi.

Legal provisions and case laws involved

A day after the passing of Delhi government  order, the lieutenant governor of Delhi passed a parallel order as per section 18(3) of the Disaster Management Act by directing hospitals to not to deny any of the patients even if they are not the residents of Delhi. He has stipulated that the Supreme Court in various judgments has held the right to health as an integral part of the right to life which is included in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Then also the Delhi High Court has denied the medical treatments of those who are not the citizens of Delhi is impermissible.

In the case of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India held that “there is no second opinion that preservation of human life is of paramount importance”. Ranganath Misra J. in his judgment is also of the view that Article 21 of the constitution casts an obligation on the state to preserve the life of every individual in the sphere of territorial constitutionality of India.

In a case of Civil Rights Group vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors quashed the circular which creates a classification of residents and non residents on the issues concerning health related issues on the grounds of insufficient beds. The view taken by the government of Delhi in relation to not providing any medical infrastructure facility to the non-resident citizens is contradictory to this case law.

Critical Analysis

The situation of pandemic has created a serious impact to the citizens as well as government. Based upon the seriousness of the chaotic situation of Covid-19, the government should not ignore the basic fundamental principles of the Constitution of India. The right to health is an integral part which is included in right to life under article 21 of the Constitution of India. While there are insufficient beds pertaining to the Hospitals of Delhi, the government should adopt other requisite measures to solve this problem instead of creating a ban to non-citizens of Delhi to avail hospital beds. This would only further create a turmoil situation more adverse, confusing, and cause quarrel between the citizens and the government, therefore to avoid this situation the government should reflect the management and create decisions under the sphere of territorial law which would be beneficial in nature for all the residents of India.


The above view regarding the availability of beds, the government should have to oversee their own decisions and create diverse scenarios with the view to protect its citizens. Creating the ban on residents of citizens is not the solution to end this pandemic. This would further create adverse impact to those who come from villages. As the advanced medical facility is only available in metropolitan cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru. There is a need to apply a tactic which is beneficial for all the residing residents of the Country.

Author: Jagrit Chawla from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University.

Editor: Silky Mittal, Junior Editor, Lexlife India.


Shooting incidents in JMI: Legal angle

Reading time: 6-8 minutes.

“As Right to Life & Personal Liberty, does not include Right to Die, similarly Right to form Association and Criticise the Govt, doesn’t specifically outright the use of arms and ammunition to force the Government to undo anything, which is the will of the people.”

Recent happenings in the heart of the capital of the Republic of India is something which may or may not be termed as stupefying the working of the Indian Constitution, but surely have shocked the conscience of every prudent citizen of this beautiful country.

Our Constitution gives fair privilege to protest against any decision of the Government which they have chosen by exercising their Right to Vote and under a Social Contract have conferred handful of rights with duties to serve the people, and on other hand people also reserve the Right to support any action of Government, on the basic premise that they are no different from ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ who are real sovereign of this Nation who have all right to take necessary action for undoing the wrongs committed by the Govt., stressing on the popular referendum.

But this also comes with certain restriction and duty and a peaceful procedure is what everyone preaches to be adhered by bringing fruitful changes in the policy which is to be enforced for the welfare of the entire country.   

The need to highlight the Right to Protest with the underlying limitations to it arose when the nation was struck with the feeling of terror during the Anti-CAA protests at Jamia Milia Islamia, followed by the police’s strike in the campus which hurled the atmosphere of violent protest thereby noting the gun shooting instances near and in the campus by the Indian Youth, This has categorically raised serious issues as to the Govt’s approach coupled with the ineffective handling of Law & Order Situation by the Police Authorities and reason behind such shooting incidents in one of the Premier Academic Institute of India.

Brief about Citizenship Amendment Act and the contentions to oppose it

After getting the Presidential Assent on December 12, 2019, the CAB (Citizenship Amendment Bill) was enacted into the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) which provided for the fast track process of giving citizenship rights to the religious minorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who were living in India without valid documents who were ‘forced or compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution’ in their native state before the cut off date of 31, December 2014.

The contentions and opposition which traced the path of the 2-month long protest against CAA, which in no case is showing signs to resolve are as follows:

“The critics of the Act quote that it is fundamentally discriminatory in the nature of rejecting one religion and preferring others, which is stated to dissolve & harm the secular nature of the Indian Constitution and specifically violates Article 14 of the same.”

This has caused grave concerns so as to protect the rights of our Muslims brothers and sisters of our Country, for which nationwide protest is going on. However, a major point of concern which has raised under the garb of these protests is the way people are getting around in the protests while damaging the Public & Private Property, protesting with arms & ammunition and even going to the limit of active use of guns and deadly weapon, thereby not only creating an atmosphere of fear or threat, but categorically threatening to wither away the unity & integrity of our homeland.

Brief of continuous incidents of gun shooting in and around Jamia Milia Islamia

Incident No. 1: January 30, 2020- “when a man – who claims to be minor – took out his gun at a student march from Jamia Milia University to Rajghat against CAA on the death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi and started shouting threats. Despite a heavy police presence, the visuals from the incident showed him walking alone on an empty road barricaded by police and finally taking a shot at the protesters.

After shooting, he turned around and shouting at the protesters in Hindi, quoted “Jai Shri Ram, Yeh Lo Azaadi”. His bullet injured a first-year student of Jamia’s mass communication department. Moreover, his social media accounts show that he went live before firing on the crowd, so as to take revenge for the Chandan’s Death in a communal clash in Uttar Pradesh, clearly showing that the protest might have taken a shape to counter personal anguish, which is not yet proved.

Incident 2– February 1, 2020- Where a man resorted to aerial firing while shouting “Hindu Rashtra Zindabad” and “Iss desh mein kisi ki nahin chalegi, sirf Hinduon ki chalegi” near the Jasola Red Light at around 04:53 PM whereby no one was injured, has caused serious question as to effectiveness of Police Authorities who were in large number present near Shaheen Bagh where anti-CAA protests were being held.

Incident 3– February 2, 2020- Where unidentified gunmen riding a scooter opened fire outside Gate number 5 of Jamia Millia University where students and members of the civil society have been holding protests against the Citizenship Act (CAA) for several weeks. The Delhi Police after the incident was reported doesn’t found any bullet shell nor any evidence as to the happening of firing, thereby registering the complaint at the premise of the eye-witnesses of the Incident.

Legal consequences and laws violated by the attackers

The ruthless efforts of the attackers to stir the conscience of the protesters as well as to shake the integrity of our Nation, the incident of firing on the crowd have violated and invoked the following laws against the attacker:

  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
    1. Section 307- Attempt to Murder
    1. Section 153A- Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
    1. Section-153AA- Punishment for knowingly carrying arms in any procession or organising, or holding or taking part in any mass drill or mass training with arms
    1. Section-153B- Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration.
  2. Arms Act, 1959
    1. Section 25- Punishment for certain offences.
    1. Section 27- Punishment for possessing arms, etc, with intent to use them for an unlawful purpose
    1. Section 29- Punishment for knowingly purchasing arms, etc., from unlicensed person or for delivering arms, etc., to person not entitled to possess the same.
  3. Invocation of the Provisions of National Security Act, 1980.

Thus, the attackers shall be liable for the commission of the offences committed under the offences hereinabove mentioned.

Impact of the firing incidents: Making law & order situation vulnerable to repeated wrongdoings

Such incidents will surely have an impact not only on the minds of the protesters who are being directly inflicted to threat, fear and injuries, but also to every citizen of India who has trusted the Administration & Policing System, now being questioning the ineffective resolution of such incidents. 3 consecutive incidents have raised serious contentions in the mind of people, that is this the only way to get justice and causation of such firings have also boosted the morale of the deviants to adopt the same, as a legitimate way to bring their choices and needs to be fulfilled.

Some state that such incidents are because of political aggravation, whereas some others denote it as a means to realise the personal enmity. But surely such incidents have a great impact on the mental well-being of the Country, where there is sense of insecurity developed in the minds of people, and thus affecting the overall development and image, as well as repute of the country at the Global Stage.


Theway forward is to take harsh and immediate actions against the perpetrators, because the path they have chosen is surely not acceptable, though their motive is in line with the welfare of the society or the Country as a whole. In this respect, a specialised force should be deployed in the area of protests, who would keep a keen eye on such incidents and an order of immediate action taken thereby to restrict such firing be given to such force, so that Law & Order Situation is maintained and citizen in its entirety feels safe & secure, for which the Govt. as well as the people should join hands.  

Author: Harshit Sharma from Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh (AUMP), Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.

Editor: Anna Jose Kallivayalil from NLU, Delhi.

Remedies available after award of death penalty

Reading time: 6-8 minutes.

Death Penalty or Capital Punishment is a government sanctioned order whereby a person is sentenced to death for the commission of any heinous offence. It is given in the rarest of rare cases. Death Penalty aims to make the convict as well as the whole society realize the magnitude of the wrong that has happened. The Nirbhaya Rape case involved an appalling incident of brutality and atrocity at its peak.

It showcased the worst shades of human existence and portrayed the inhumane instincts present in the society. This needs to be corrected in order to avoid the commission of such acts in the future. The execution of the death penalty should be done within a reasonable amount of time, unlike the unreasonable delay in the case of the Nirbhaya Rape convicts.

Details and significance of the incident:

The Honorable Supreme Court had announced death penalty to the convicts of the Nirbhaya Rape case. However, the execution of the same been postponed for a very long time. Recently, the court dismissed the plea of separate hanging of the four convicts. One of the four convicts, Akshay Kumar Singh’s mercy petition has been rejected by the President. Pawan Gupta was the only convict who had not filed any such petition, so he has been provided with a week’s time period to avail the same if he wishes to. The postponement of the capital punishment of these barbaric people has, however, a rage across the nation. It seems apt to comprehend the importance of the phrase, justice delayed is equal to justice denied in this case.

Background: Events leading up to this incident

The Nirbhaya case, a shocking instance of barbarism and atrocity, took place on 16 December, 2012 in Southern Delhi. It involved the brutal rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman, Jyoti Singh. She was returning home after watching a movie with a friend of hers. They both boarded a bus with six men in it, including a minor who told them that the bus was going in the direction in which they wanted to go. The direction of the bus changed all of a sudden and the doors were locked.

The friend of the victim became suspicious and a brawl started between him and the other men. He was ruthlessly beaten with an iron rod and at last he became unconscious. The men then started beating Jyoti with the rod and then raped her in a moving bus. The injuries had caused serious illness to Jyoti around her abdomen, genitals and intestine. The medical reports revealed that the vile act included the penetration of an iron rod. They later on threw Jyoti and her friend outside the bus and cleaned it in order to remove evidence. They were found by a passerby and admitted to Safdarjung Hospital. She was in a very bad condition and was provided an emergency treatment. This inhumane act had shocked the whole nation, leading to a nationwide protest.

Reasons behind this move:

Sexual violence is not just a dehumanizing act but also an unlawful infringement of a woman’s right to live with dignity, sanctity and privacy. It is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim and pushes a woman into deep emotional crisis. A crime which destroys the soul of woman deserves a strict implementation of punishment.

However, there have many debates about the award of death penalty. In the 1980 landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in context of death penalty, propounded that, “A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.” However, this is a case falling under the rarest of rare cases and hence deserves the execution of death penalty of the convicts.

Remedies available to a person on award of death penalty:

The pardoning principle has been recognized as an act of grace and humanity in every civilized nation. These remedies are as follows:

  •  The award of the death sentence by a trial court must be reaffirmed by a High Court under section 366 (1)of CrPC to make it final.
  • Article 137 of the Indian Constitution provides the power to the Supreme Court to review the orders and judgments passed by it. The review petition can be filed under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC.
  • After the dismissal of the review petition, the person can file curative petition. Petitioners can file curative petitions in case of gross violation of principles of natural justice. The curative petition will be sent to the three most senior judges and the bench of judges who passed the judgment. If the majority of them find substance in the petition, then the matter would be sent to the same bench of judges.
  • Mercy Petition can be filed by the convicts. It is to be done within a period of seven days from the date when the Superintendent of jail informs the convicted person of the dismissal of the petition.
  • Article 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution provides the power to pardon the petitioner to the President and the Governor, respectively.

Scope of improvement in this field:

The court must set a specified period of time within which the judgment of death penalty must be executed. The unnecessary prolonging of the same would tantamount to a great magnitude of emotionally traumatic, financially taxing and socially saddening. The very basic improvement that needs to be done is the uniformity of temporal provision provided to the convicts adjudged to get death penalty. Fast track courts should be more functional, and the element of transparency should be present.

The way forward:

There is a need to speed up the cases having the gravity of involving death penalty. There are many debates going on regarding the constitutionality of the same. However, the reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in death-sentence-in-no-case doctrine are not far to seek.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), stated the need for fast execution of death penalty. In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of “reverence for life” principle. When a member of the community violates this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine.

Secondly, it has to be realized that every member of the community should able to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the protective arm of the community and on account of the rule of law enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of the law operates as a deterrent for criminals. Every member of the community owes a debt to the community for this protection.

Author: Archie Anant from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.

Editor: Anna Jose Kallivayalil from NLU, Delhi.

Code of conduct for electoral campaign

Reading time: 6-8 minutes.

Elections are close in Delhi and no party is leaving even a single stone unturned to give their side an edge over their opponents, for this the representatives of these parties are going at length to show that how foul the other party is but recently for Anurag Thakur and Pravesh Sahib Singh, it has lost the direction on the morality radar, resulting into an embargo by the Election Commission of India. Here in this article let us look into what the matter was and what essentially the Model Code of Conduct is.

Details of the incident

The Election Commission of India (ECI) barred BJP leader Anurag Thakur and West Delhi MP Parvesh Sahib Singh from campaigning for the Delhi Assembly elections for 72 hours and 96 Hours respectively, for violating the Model Code of Conduct.

In Anurag Thakur’s case, while addressing a public meeting in the Rithala Assembly constituency he while giving his views on the Anti-CAA protests, chanted “shoot the traitors of the country” while using slurs against the protestors. After the imposition of the embargo, he told the Election Commission that he did not have the intention to create or promote enmity between different religions, ideologies or communities.

In Pravesh Singh’s case, there were two different accounts where he made objectionable statements during where a public meeting in Vikaspuri firstly and then during an interview with the news agency ANI. He, being an outspoken member of the party, when was asked about the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in Shaheen Bagh, said the protestors would enter the homes of the common masses and rape their women.

On these accounts, the Election Commission found both leaders liable for the violation of the Model Code of Conduct and Representation of the People Act, 1951 by making an undesirable and objectionable statement which considering the present Indian Scenario was seditious in nature.

What is the Model Code of Conduct?

The Model Code of Conduct is a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission to regulate the actions political parties and their candidates before elections, so as to ensure free and fair elections. These guidelines have been made in consonance with Article 324 of the Constitution, which gives the Election Commission the power to supervise elections to the Parliament and state legislatures. It becomes operational from the date when the election schedule is announced until the date of results.

Model Code of Conduct for campaign

Model Code of Conduct contains eight distinct provisions dealing with various aspects of elections such as general conduct, meetings, processions, polling day, polling booths, observers, party in power, and election manifestos. All this is to ensure that the elections go on smoothly and there is no malpractice done throughout the elections. Some of the important provisions under various headings are as follows:

  1. General Conduct: Under this, the commission limits criticism of political parties only on their policies, past record and work. Using caste and communal feelings to secure votes, bribing or intimidating voters, or organising demonstrations etc. are strictly prohibited under this.
  2. Meetings: If any party has to organise a meeting with the general public it should first intimidate the local police authorities about the venue and time of such meeting so that they can make adequate security arrangements to avoid any unforeseen event.
  3. Processions: If two or more candidates plan processions along the same route and at the same time, it is to be ensured that the processions do not clash. Carrying and burning effigies of members of other political parties are also not allowed under this heading.
  4. Polling day: Authorised party workers should be given identity badges at the polling booths which have all the important information of that worker and the party he/she is representing.
  5. Polling booths: Under this regulation only the voters and members with valid passes from the Election Commission, are allowed to enter polling booths.
  6. Observers: The Commission appoints an observer who has the job to listen and address the problems of a candidate regarding the conduct of the election.
  7. Party in power: Certain restrictions were also imposed on the ruling party since 1979, so as to regulate the conduct of such parties. Such a party must avoid advertising on public wealth or using official mass media to improve chances of victory in the elections. Ministers and other authorities of the ruling party must not announce any financial grants, or promise any construction of roads, provision of drinking water, etc.  The ruling party must not monopolies the public places and therefore other parties are also allowed to use public spaces and rest houses.
  8. Election manifestos: This heading was added in 2013 under which parties are prohibited from making promises that exert an undue influence on voters.

Is the code enforceable?

As of contemporary times, the Model Code of Conduct is not directly enforceable by law. However, certain regulations are enforceable through provisions in various statutes such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is ironical but the Election Commission has asked not to make them legally enforceable because elections being held for a short period need no long-running judicial proceedings. On the other skill, in 2013, the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, recommended making the MCC legally binding and make it a part of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Scope of improvement in election laws

Modern-day elections need a great overhaul because of the stagnancy and the latency that was ever-present in its mechanism. The most significant improvement that could be done in the field of election laws is to make voting compulsory. Though this would not necessarily make a radical change, it would drive a lot more people to the polls and make them aware of their duties as an Indian citizen.

As recommended by the Law Commission in its 2015 report a restriction should be imposed on government-sponsored report advertisements for up to six months before the date of expiry of the House/Assembly because it gives an advantage to the ruling party to issue advertisements that highlight its achievements, which results into an undue advantage over other parties.

To avoid the malpractices that were ever-present in Elections the government should come up with a plan of registration through biometrics so that a person can vote only once thereby reducing the prevalent custom wherein a party worker votes multiple times which leads to an undue advantage to the party.

These are a few but very important points to be observed and revamped in Election Laws. As of now, the overall election system seeks a major overhaul and this is only possible when the governments would take some drastic steps.


Therefore, based upon these observations it could be concluded that the Election Commission is indeed taking necessary measures to conduct fair and peaceful elections in the country. But it cannot be denied that the guidelines mentioned under the Model Code of Conduct are not executed properly which is the greatest lacuna or drawback of the entire system.

For all these reasons, there is a strong need for election reforms in the country which could overhaul the contemporary mechanism and shifts the entire paradigm on a smooth track which is alone is the way to a balanced democracy.

Author: Pratyush Pandey from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala.

Editor: Tamanna Gupta from RGNUL, Patiala

Analysis: Delhi fire

Reading time: 6-8 minutes.

A few months after the Karol Bagh Hotel fire massacre, another tragedy has been struck in Anaj Mandi, Delhi. Almost 43 lives have been reported to be dead and several injured in the said incident. It took place in the early hours of December 8, 2019, where a massive fire broke out on the second floor of a four-storey building located in an area designated as residential.

An unauthorised manufacturing unit was being operated inside the building which was responsible for the employment of numerous workers. The building covered an area of approximately 500 m2 and had just a single door which made the rescue of the trapped personnel extremely difficult.

The window grills and meshes of metal had to be cut off to enter the property. Only a single fire tender was sent at a time because of the narrow congested lanes. Despite having two staircases, only one was functional as the other one was blocked by stocks and supplies.

The structure was not in possession of a fire clearance and lacked proper ventilation. The property was filled with a lot of inflammable items such as plastic sheets, cardboards, rexin, etc. The major reason for the fatalities was due to asphyxiation as the workers were sleeping around the machines when the fire broke out.

Affixing responsibility:

As a preliminary action, the proprietor of the said property has been taken into custody along with the manager to ascertain the problem. The owners and the management do play a vital role in the negligent behaviour regarding the incident, but the administrative authorities are also to be looked upon as the building had no fire clearance and still it was functional.

This event coincidentally happened before the Assembly Polls, where the opposition can now raise a huge question on the administrative wing of the AAP Government as it is responsible for the labour and civic services in Delhi.

The weak enforcement of regulations and casual attitude towards the illegalities has raised the occurrences of these tragic incidents. The government officials are also to some extent responsible for aiding and abetting in these incidents as crucial safety rules are being ignored and licences are still granted to these establishments to conduct unauthorised activities.  

Legal principles involved:

The property comes under the purview of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 which lays down the provisions for protection of illegal/unauthorised construction from being sealed. Various other acts are also to be considered for the same, such as The Factories Act, 1948, which deals with problems of occupational safety and health in factories.

Proper internal inquiries among the administrative departments should be commenced for overlooking various substantial violations across the civic bodies. The laws and provisions are properly made for keeping an elaborate check on the illegal and unauthorised activities, but the lack of effective mechanism for the same has become one of the main reasons of these illegal activities to continue in plain sight.

The main effect that the lack of initiatives for systematic mechanisms incurs is of the absence of any viable accountability. The government entities must be held accountable for such misconduct along with the wrongdoers. The fast-track courts are the best alternatives to get justice to the victims in these scenarios.

Public reaction:

The general masses have shown great empathy towards the victims of this tragic incident. Furthermore, great concern regarding the conduct and functioning of the administrative wing of the government has surfaced in the minds of many.

Questions in respect of operation of the appropriate authorities to keep a check on the illegal activities and to maintain a common standard for the potency of the business and establishments have been raised in social media as well as in newspapers and magazines.

People on a large scale have raised their voice for the introduction of a proper mechanism to eradicate the erroneous practitioners and to prohibit the implementation of illegal spheres of trade and commerce.

There are also very conflicting views amongst the audience as to who should be blamed for the same as on one hand the establishment is unauthorised and doesn’t abide by the provisions. On the other hand, it is providing livelihood to many workers and is bread and butter to many.

How can we save ourselves in a similar circumstance?

The feeling of fear rushes into one’s whole body and soul when he/she is trapped in a dangerous situation. The most important thing that strikes the mind is to eradicate that fear by saving one’s own life.

It’s not easy to tackle a situation such like this, but one must try to make the most out of his/her efforts to be safe and sound. There are some important things that one should do when he/she is stuck in a building which has caught fire:

  • One should never ignore a fire alarm. The first reaction should always be to take your keys, forewarn the persons around you, and go.
  • One should act promptly but try to maintain his cool.
  • One should stay low in cases of smoke and fumes.
  • Don’t search for valuables; just make the run for the exit.
  • Don’t use the fire extinguisher unless you know how to.
  • Wake anyone who’s asleep so as to make them totally aware of the situation.
  • Feel the doorknob, with the back of your hand, if its warm then there may be fire on the other side of that door.
  • If the smoke is coming in, the door should be closed down tightly so as to keep the smoke from spreading around.
  • One should never use lifts or elevators in these situations as they are not normally fitted with a fire detection system.
  • One should slam doors as they leave so as to confine the fire or smoke as much as possible.
  • If the fire alarm is in the vicinity, do pull it.
  • One should move towards an open area or if a building has a designated assembly area which is safe, do head there.


Public safety is a serious issue and it must not be compromised at any cost. It is the duty of the proper authorities and of the government to chart a course with a novel nature which should make the procedure of inspection or examination much easier and efficient.

In the race of development especially in the urban areas, the wrongdoers are indulging in shortcut methods to earn money more quickly and also to escape from the clutches of proper regulations. This has not only encouraged more and more people to act the same, but they have no fear of punishment for misconduct.

With the strong enforcement of regulations along with easier and efficient procedure for procurement of different licences for a commercial establishment, the general notion among the people will definitely change and will bring about welfare in the commercial society as well as the administrative body. The new occupational safety code must be amended in such a way so as to adapt to the needs of both the employer and the employee.

Author: Jatin Bhudhiraja from Amity Law School, Noida.

Editor: Farsana Sadiq from Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.