Women sit next to belongings of stampede victims as devotees leave after attending the Maha Kumbh.
Credit: Reuters Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a PIL for proper implementation of specific guidelines and regulations to ensure safety of devotees attending the Maha Kumbh at Prayagraj where at least 30 people lost their lives and 60 got injured during a stampede on the occasion of 'Amrit Snan' on 'Mauni Amavasya' on January 29.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar acknowledged that the incident was something of concern and it was an unfortunate incident.
The court, however, asked petitioner advocate Vishal Tiwari to approach the Allahabad High Court with his plea.
"We are not entertaining the petition. You can move the High court," the bench said.
During the hearing, advocate Tiwari, sought directions, claiming that such incidents of stampede has become regular. He also sought directions to formulate policies and regulations.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer, Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, opposed the PIL, saying that there is already a judicial commission.
"A judicial inquiry is underway into the incident. A similar petition has been filed in the High Court," Rohatgi said.
The petitioner sought directions to all the state governments to ensure safety, security of people going to Kumbh from their respective states.
"There shall be directions to all the states to work collectively for the safe and secure visit of devotees at Maha Kumbh. All the states shall establish in proper manner their facilitation centres at the Prayagraj Maha Kumbh. These centres shall provide and display the basic information regarding the safety measures and guidelines to the persons coming from their states. In emergency these centres shall be ready for any assistance," his PIL said.
The petitioner contended, from 1954 Kumbh Mela stampede accident to Maha Kumbh 2025 stampede in Uttar Pradesh which took around 30 lives and left several injured, it is clear that nothing in the administration has changed wherein such incidents could have been avoided by showing reasonable duty of care, upfront repair and development activity.