Delhi HC refuses stay on release of web series on Uphaar tragedy

The series is based on the book Trial By Fire: The Tragic Tale of The Uphaar Fire Tragedy authored by Neelam and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, who lost their two children to the blaze.

The Delhi high court on Thursday refused to halt the release of the Netflix web series Trial by Fire, based on the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy, as it dismissed a lawsuit by Sushil Ansal, one of the convicts in the case, arguing that an “unimaginable tragedy made a nation bow its head in shame”, and underlining that the latter’s negligence in the incident is “well documented”.

Dilapidated seats inside Uphaar cinema hall in 2018. On June 13, 1997 a fire broke out half way through the screening of ‘Border’. The fire claimed the lives of 59 people and over 100 were injured due to suffocation in the ensuing stampede. (HT Photo)

The series is based on the book Trial By Fire: The Tragic Tale of The Uphaar Fire Tragedy authored by Neelam and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, who lost their two children to the blaze.

Rejecting Ansal’s interim application, justice Yashwant Varma said that the right of Neelam and Shekhar to narrate their tragic journey through police precincts and court halls far outweighs the plaintiff’s “unsubstantiated loss of reputation”.

On Tuesday, 83-year-old Ansal approached the high court for an injunction against the release of the web series, contending that he has been punished “legally and socially”, and that the series will cause “irreparable harm” to his reputation and breach his right to privacy.

The lawsuit also sought to restrain the circulation and publication of their book.

The court on Wednesday reserved its order on Ansal’s plea.

The fire broke out on June 13, 1997, killing 59 and injuring 103.

Real estate barons Sushil and Gopal Ansal were sentenced to two years by the Supreme Court in August 2015 in the main fire case. But they avoided further imprisonment after spending about five months in prison when the apex court, in August 2015, ruled that a penalty of ₹30 crore each and time already served was adequate punishment for their criminal negligence given their age.

Justice Varma, in an interim order released on Thursday, pulled up Ansal for belatedly approaching the court, since the book has been in circulation since 2016.

It said that the information and reportage about the tragedy has been in circulation for 26 years.

“The plaintiff (Ansal) chose, for reasons best known to him, not to initiate any injunctive action in respect of the said work when it came to be originally published on September 19, 2016. A slothful or sluggish plaintiff seeking an injunction of the nature which is sought in these proceedings cannot be allowed to claim such reliefs,” the judge said in a 39-page order.

The judge said that at first glance, Ansal “appears to have concealed material facts… while asserting that he became aware of the contents of the book only on or about January 8, 2023”.

Denying relief to Ansal, the single judge bench noted that the book has been penned by parents who lost teenaged children in the unfortunate incident, adding that the book essentially represents their perspective and opinion.

“The court consequently finds no justification to consider the grant of an ad interim injunction based on something which came to be published way back in 2016,” the judge said.

The court said that a fictional rendition of their trials and tribulations cannot, prima facie, be presumed to be defamatory.

“More fundamentally, their personal experience and perception of the incident or the culpability of the plaintiff would remain their belief, impression and understanding of the entire episode. Ultimately it would be for a reasonably informed individual acting upon contemporary standards to form his/her opinion. In any case and prima facie the court finds itself unconvinced to record or arrive at the conclusion that the narrative penned by defendant Nos 4 and 5 (Neelam and Shekhar) could be said to be wholly fantastical or deprived of a semblance of the truth as conceived,” the court said.

It also rejected a submission by Ansal’s lawyer, pressing for the injunction, that a web series is likely to have a wider circulation and a greater impact than a book.