Bags and other belongings lying at the scene a day after a massive stampede that took place during a 'satsang' (religious congregation), in Sikandara Rao area in Hathras district, Wednesday, July 3, 2024.
Credit: PTI Photo
Lucknow: No physical inspection of the venue or mention of the expected number of attendees in the permission, gross neglect of safety protocols and failure to inform senior officials are among the administrative lapses cited by the judicial commission investigating the July 2, 2024, Hathras stampede that claimed 121 lives.
The report, submitted to the Uttar Pradesh government and tabled in the state assembly on Wednesday, cited an unchecked increase in crowd size, inadequate infrastructure and mismanagement by the event organisers as among the factors that led to the tragedy.
The three-member judicial commission was set up by the state government, with justice (retired) Brijesh Kumar Shrivastav as its chairperson along with former IAS officer Hemant Rao and former IPS officer Bhavesh Kumar as members.
Surajpal, the real name of the preacher, was not mentioned as an accused in the FIR lodged by the local police following the deadly stampede in Sikandrarao's Fulrai village.
The inquiry revealed that the event's chief organiser, Dev Prakash Madhukar, submitted a formal application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Sikandrarao on June 18, 2024, seeking permission for a gathering of 80,000 people.
The application was accompanied by letters of support from local representatives, including the village head of Phulrai Mugalgadhi, a district council member, and the MLA of Sikandrarao constituency, Virendra Singh Rana.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) forwarded the application for police verification on the same day. However, the verification process was rushed, with responsibility for the security assessment changing hands multiple times before final approval was granted within hours.
Critically, no physical inspection of the venue was conducted before granting permission. The approval process was purely mechanical, with officials failing to examine the documents attached to the application or verify the claims made by the organisers, according to the report.
The formal permission order dated June 18, 2024, did not specify the expected number of attendees, despite the original application mentioning 80,000 participants. Additionally, an error in the permission letter recorded the police verification date incorrectly as December 18, 2024, instead of June 18, 2024, raising further concerns about the scrutiny process.
On June 19, 2024, a revised permission was issued, but it merely added amendments regarding loudspeaker usage while retaining all other details from the initial approval.
This revised permission was also sent only to the same limited officials as the original approval, without wider communication to senior district administration or law enforcement officials. The commission noted that the necessity for this revision was unclear, as no record of an additional request for modification was found.
While the official permission did not specify a crowd limit, the actual turnout far exceeded the anticipated 80,000 attendees, with estimates ranging between 2.5 to 3 lakh people. The authorities failed to monitor adherence to permission conditions even after the event commenced.
One of the key safety violations was the presence of armed sevadars (volunteers) wielding sticks, despite Clause 1 of the event conditions explicitly banning weapons, including sticks and batons.
The report confirms that these armed volunteers were deployed for crowd control from the day before the event.
Another major violation was the lack of fire safety and electrical precautions. Clause 3 of the permission required the completion of fire safety and electrical arrangements before the event, but no compliance measures were taken, and no enforcement action was initiated.
Clause 5 of the approval mandated a predetermined route for preacher Narayan Sakar Hari's arrival and departure, but no such route chart was ever prepared or submitted. The preacher was escorted directly through the congested crowd on the highway in the wrong direction, further worsening the chaotic dispersal after the event.
The report highlights that event organisers and sevadars disregarded police and administrative directives during the event.
Despite Clause 10 of the permission requiring compliance with police instructions, evidence suggests that sevadars actively prevented law enforcement from performing their duties.
Clause 11 stated that traffic regulations must be followed and public roads should not be blocked, but vehicles were haphazardly parked along roadsides, causing severe congestion and obstructing movement.
No designated parking areas were marked, and no directional signage was provided for visitors. Even Narayan Sakar Hari's vehicle was driven on the wrong side of the highway, violating traffic norms.
The commission found that attendees were influenced by superstitious beliefs, as they were led to believe that Narayan Sakar Hari could cure ailments and exorcise spirits through his sermons.
Testimonies and video evidence collected during the investigation confirmed that the preacher's followers claimed to experience supernatural healing at these gatherings.
The report condemned such practices as misleading, exploitative, and an encouragement of blind faith among vulnerable devotees.
One of the most shocking findings of the report is that all security, crowd control, and traffic management responsibilities were entirely handed over to the event organisers and their sevadars, with local police and administration taking a passive role.
The organisers assured officials that they would handle everything, leading to a lack of official oversight. The commission strongly criticised this approach, stating that ensuring public safety is a fundamental duty of law enforcement and cannot be outsourced to private individuals.
Although some conditions of the event approval -- such as bans on caste-based speeches, obscene remarks, and damage to property-- were not found to be violated, the gross neglect of safety protocols, disregard for administrative control, and failure to prevent overcrowding directly led to the tragedy.