\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n GS2 \u00b7 GS3 \u2014 Urban Governance & Disaster Management<\/span><\/p>\n The death toll in the collapse of a building housing students in Satya Niketan rose to seven on Monday. The Delhi High Court expressed deep concern over the safety of students living in paying guest accommodations across the capital and directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to inspect all PG hostels under its jurisdiction within a week. A data analysis in the same edition shows that 7,874 people died in building collapses across India between 2020 and 2024.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Building safety is governed by the National Building Code of India, 2016<\/strong>, the Model Building Bye-Laws, 2016<\/strong> of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, and municipal bye-laws, with structural stability and occupancy certificates as the primary compliance instruments. Under the Disaster Management Act, 2005<\/strong>, structural collapse is treated as a man-made disaster, with response through the NDRF and District Disaster Management Authorities. Municipal functions including regulation of land-use and building construction are listed in the Twelfth Schedule<\/strong> (74th Constitutional Amendment). Affordable rental housing is supported through the Affordable Rental Housing Complexes<\/strong> scheme under PMAY-Urban. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023<\/strong> decriminalised a large number of minor offences across statutes to ease business compliance \u2014 the reform whose application to building offences the Opposition now questions.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n The court’s key move is widening liability:<\/strong> By refusing to confine responsibility to the owner and naming the MCD and university authorities, the High Court shifts the frame from criminal negligence by an individual to institutional failure \u2014 which is what the five-year death toll actually describes.<\/p>\n Decriminalisation versus deterrence:<\/strong> If provisions penalising dangerous construction were diluted for ease-of-business reasons, the expected cost of violation falls below the rental income from an over-occupied structure. Decriminalisation is defensible for procedural lapses; it is harder to defend where the offence risks life.<\/p>\n Enforcement by tragedy:<\/strong> Sealing all five-storey-plus illegal buildings after seven deaths is the reactive pattern the data condemns. Buildings extended floor by floor over decades in public view represent continuous, visible non-enforcement.<\/p>\n The housing arithmetic is the root cause:<\/strong> Universities house a small fraction of enrolled students; migrant students then absorb both high rents and unsafe conditions. Sealing supply without adding hostel capacity will push students into cheaper and less safe accommodation elsewhere.<\/p>\n Per-million burden is the telling metric:<\/strong> Delhi’s 42 deaths look modest against Uttar Pradesh’s 223 until adjusted for population \u2014 at which point the capital’s enforcement failure becomes visible.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n \n \ud83d\udcdd Prelims Relevance<\/strong> \n 15M<\/span> Consider the following statements:<\/p>\nDelhi HC orders audit of hostels as collapse toll hits 7; nearly 8,000 died in structure collapses in five years<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Context<\/h3>\n
Background & Key Facts \u2014 The Incident<\/h3>\n
\n
The Data Point \u2014 Nearly 8,000 Deaths in Five Years<\/h3>\n
\n
Static Background<\/h3>\n
\n
National Building Code 2016<\/span>
\n Model Building Bye-Laws 2016<\/span>
\n ADSI & NCRB<\/span>
\n Twelfth Schedule<\/span>
\n Jan Vishwas Act 2023<\/span>
\n ARHC scheme<\/span>\n <\/p>\n
\n Mains Question:<\/em> “Nearly 8,000 deaths in five years indicate that building collapses in India are a governance failure, not a series of accidents.” Examine the regulatory, judicial and housing-policy interventions required to address this. (15 marks, 250 words)\n <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nMCQ: Building safety governance<\/summary>\n
\n