Tragedies, lapses and outdated laws

The cricket world, not just Bengaluru or India, is mourning the deaths of fans who had assembled at the Chinnaswamy Stadium to celebrate the success of the local IPL team, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), but fell victim to a stampede. The cricket association, IPL team management and state government may offer compensation in the form of a ‘solatium’. But would it truly ‘compensate’ the victims adequately? That is the question India has been grappling with for the past 170 years.

Which law governs accountability and compensation for loss of life? The Fatal Accidents Act (FAA), 1855, is one of the colonial-era statutes that remains operational in India, having survived the test of time yet increasingly found wanting in the face of modern realities. Enacted under British rule and modelled on the English Fatal Accidents Act of 1846, it was designed to compensate families of people who died due to wrongful acts, neglect or default by others. Despite its noble purpose, the Act is now seen as outdated and ill-equipped to address contemporary complexities. Through several landmark judgments, the Supreme Court of India has highlighted the urgent need to revamp this antiquated legislation.

Historically, the FAA came into being in England because there was an exception to the Common Law principle that any person harmed due to another’s fault or negligence had the right to seek damages. This was based on the principle ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy). However, before the enactment of the FAA, if the injury resulted in death, the victim’s legal representatives had no remedy. The grim saying at the time was: “It was cheaper to kill than to maim.” This principle, rooted in the Baker vs Bolton ruling, owed to the Latin maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (a personal right of action dies with the person). The FAA was an exception to the maxim, introducing a remedy for fatal claims.

Under British rule, India adopted the English Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, which was later supplanted by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Even today, English Common Law principles continue to dominate, with Indian courts following them in tortious claims. Therefore, the exception provided in Section 1-A of FAA 1855, remains necessary, even in independent India.

At 159 years old, the FAA is showing signs of strain, as a series of SC judgments suggest. In Charan Lal Sahu vs Union of India, the court observed that the antiquated Act should either be drastically amended or replaced with fresh legislation. There have been subsequent rulings in the same vein. In
Suba Singh vs Davinder Kaur, the court went further, lamenting: It is a matter of grave concern that such sensitive issues — like compensation for deaths caused by wrongful or negligent acts — are governed by a law that is over a century and a half old... It is time for the Union government to recognise the urgent need for a contemporaneous, comprehensive statute on the subject.

In Irshad Ali vs Rajan Kumar, the Allahabad High Court joined the chorus of demands.

The most recent example is the SC’s decision in Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Purshottam V Murjani. The court upheld the liability of the corporation and reiterated that constitutional courts must, in suitable cases, uphold claims arising from loss of life or liberty due to violations of statutory duties by public authorities. Just and fair claims by citizens against public bodies must be upheld, with compensation awarded in Tort. The judgment also reiterated that hazardous activities by public bodies demand the highest degree of care, and breaches of such duty must be actionable. Recognising the urgent need for legal certainty, the court urged the Law Commission to look into the matter and take necessary steps.

Once again, the Supreme Court expressed its dismay — this time in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association — lamenting that its repeated calls for legislative action have gone unanswered. The Executive has therefore made yet another appeal for a response. In this context, an active Law Commission must take up the cause in right earnest for a lasting change. 

In the stadium stampede deaths, the Karnataka government has announced Rs 10 lakh per deceased — a mere pittance for the loss of precious lives. More importantly, the cause of the stampede must be identified, and accountability fixed, ensuring that just compensation is recovered from those responsible and paid to the victims. India is still searching for a replacement for the Fatal Accidents Act. How many more tragedies must We the People endure before lawmakers come up with an appropriate law to address such colossal disasters?

(The writer is a practising advocate in the Madras High Court)