A Recurring, Preventable Tragedy in Lucknow, When Negligence Becomes a Pattern
A narrow staircase, which was the sole exit, no emergency doors, and scarcely any ventilation in any of the halls or rooms—the details that are emerging about the three-storey building that went up in flames in Lucknow, on Monday, killing at least 15 people, seem strikingly similar to the lapses in hostels, coaching centres, hospitals, and business centres that were the sites of recent fire outbreaks. The Uttar Pradesh government has announced a probe into the illegalities. The building’s regulatory history and compliance status have come into focus after the fire, and enforcement actions by local authorities are reportedly being scrutinised. The individuals and failures responsible for the incident should, of course, be identified and the guilty held to account. But the recurring tragedies call for a deeper and more meaningful engagement with the reasons that turn buildings in urban neighbourhoods into tinderboxes.
The Lucknow fire is not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern that has claimed hundreds of lives across India in recent years. In Delhi, 21 people died in a blaze at a bed-and-breakfast in Malviya Nagar earlier this month. In Rajkot, a fire at a recreation centre killed 27 people two years ago. In Surat, a coaching centre fire killed 22 students in 2019. In Mumbai, a hospital fire killed 13 COVID-19 patients in 2021. The list is long and growing. Each tragedy is followed by the same script: an investigation, a probe, promises of action, and then silence. The next fire happens, and the cycle repeats.
The Bureau of Indian Standards’ National Building Code, which came into effect 10 years ago, has comprehensive fire safety guidelines. Several state governments, including Uttar Pradesh, have incorporated these provisions into their building codes. The state also has a Fire and Emergency Services Act, which mandates swift action after an outbreak. But in the face of administrative laxity and irregular inspections, even the most robust protocols remain on paper. The Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and the city’s Fire Services and Power departments were responsible for auditing the safety of the building that caught fire on Monday. The fragmentation of jurisdictions has played a role in stalling action against the errant owners.
The fragmentation of jurisdictions is a critical issue. Multiple agencies are responsible for different aspects of building safety. The LDA is responsible for building approvals and compliance with the building code. The Fire Services department is responsible for fire safety equipment and evacuation plans. The Power department is responsible for electrical safety. Each agency operates in its own silo. None has a comprehensive view of the building’s safety. None has the authority to enforce all the rules. This fragmentation creates a gap in accountability. When a building is unsafe, it is rarely the fault of a single agency. It is the fault of a system that allows unsafe buildings to exist.
These lapses are not very different from the failures that came to light in Delhi earlier this month, when 21 people died after a blaze in a bed-and-breakfast in Malviya Nagar. In that case, the building had been operating without proper approvals. Fire safety equipment was either missing or non-functional. The owners had been warned multiple times but had not complied. Yet, the building remained open. The authorities had the power to shut it down, but they did not. The reasons were the same: bureaucratic inertia, corruption, and a lack of political will.
In Lucknow, as in Delhi, precious time was wasted because the building’s design impeded rescue operations. The narrow staircase, the absence of emergency doors, the lack of ventilation—all of these made it difficult for firefighters to reach the victims and for the victims to escape. The design was not an accident. It was a choice. The owners chose to maximise floor space at the expense of safety. The authorities chose to look the other way. The result was a death trap.
The country’s cities are destinations for millions of job and education seekers. Many property owners compromise on safety to cash in on commercial opportunities from such migration. The demand for cheap housing and commercial space is high. The supply of safe buildings is low. The gap is filled by unsafe buildings. Owners cut corners on fire safety because they know they can get away with it. The fines are low, the inspections are rare, and the enforcement is weak. The cost of compliance is higher than the cost of non-compliance. This is a market failure, and it requires a government response.
It is high time policymakers realised that the loss of lives also takes a high toll in terms of eroding the credibility of the country’s institutions. A nation aspiring to be an economic powerhouse cannot allow its cities to become sites of recurring and preventable tragedies. The world is watching. Investors are watching. Tourists are watching. When a building collapses or catches fire in India, it makes headlines around the world. It reinforces the perception that India is a country where safety is optional, where regulations are ignored, and where the government is unable to protect its citizens. This perception is not just an embarrassment; it is an economic liability.
The solutions are not complicated. They require political will and administrative competence. First, the fragmentation of jurisdictions must be addressed. A single agency should be responsible for building safety, with the authority to enforce all relevant codes. Second, inspections must be regular and unannounced. Third, the penalties for non-compliance must be severe enough to deter violations. Fourth, the process of obtaining building approvals must be transparent and accountable. Fifth, the public must be educated about their rights and their responsibilities. A citizen who knows how to report an unsafe building is a citizen who can help prevent a tragedy.
The Lucknow fire is a tragedy, but it is also an opportunity. It is an opportunity to break the cycle of neglect and inaction. It is an opportunity to show that the government is serious about protecting its citizens. The families of the victims deserve justice. The people of Lucknow deserve safety. The country deserves a system that works. The time for accountability is now. The time for meaningful engagement is now. The time to act is now.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What are the key safety lapses in the Lucknow building that caught fire?
A1: The building had a narrow staircase as the sole exit, no emergency doors, and scarcely any ventilation in the halls or rooms. These design flaws impeded rescue operations and trapped victims inside.
Q2: How does the Lucknow fire compare to other recent fire tragedies in India?
A2: The Lucknow fire is part of a recurring pattern. Similar lapses—lack of proper exits, inadequate fire safety equipment, and regulatory failures—were seen in recent fires in Delhi (Malviya Nagar), Rajkot, Surat, and Mumbai. Each tragedy follows a similar script of investigation followed by inaction.
Q3: What role did the fragmentation of jurisdictions play in the Lucknow fire?
A3: Multiple agencies—the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), Fire Services, and Power departments—were responsible for different aspects of safety. The fragmentation meant no single agency had a comprehensive view of the building’s safety or the authority to enforce all rules, creating gaps in accountability.
Q4: Why do property owners in Indian cities compromise on fire safety?
A4: The demand for cheap housing and commercial space is high, and the supply of safe buildings is low. Owners cut corners because fines are low, inspections are rare, and enforcement is weak. The cost of compliance is higher than the cost of non-compliance.
Q5: What solutions does the article propose to prevent such tragedies?
A5: The article proposes: creating a single agency responsible for building safety; conducting regular and unannounced inspections; imposing severe penalties for non-compliance; making the building approval process transparent; and educating the public on how to report unsafe buildings. The article emphasizes that these solutions require political will and administrative competence.
