Noida techie death: What steps taken to rescue victim, high court asks NDRF and SDRF

“Fire brigade, SDRF and NDRF also reached there. Before drowning, there was a substantial period of time, in which rescue could have been attempted...,” says court

PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court, while hearing a PIL in the Noida techie death case, has asked the NDRF and SDRF to apprise it with the steps taken for the rescue of the victim, Yuvraj Mehta, and also the training received by both the response teams for preparation of emergencies.

Mehta, who then climbed on the roof of the car and called his father for help at around midnight, finally drowned to death after hours of wait and lack of rescue efforts. (HT File Photo)

The bench comprising justice MC Tripathi and justice Kunal Ravi Singh was hearing a PIL on the death of Mehta, who died in the early hours of January 17 after his car plunged into a deep, waterlogged excavation pit on a vacant plot in Sector 150. Mehta, a software engineer, was returning home from his office in Gurugram when he reportedly lost control of his vehicle in dense fog, broke through a low boundary at a sharp 90-degree turn, and fell into the pit.

The court said: “We have also perused the counter-affidavit filed by Noida and we find that even though notices were issued to various erring builders on 06.02.2026 to rectify the defects within three days, but counter-affidavit is completely silent with regard to what remedial steps were taken and whether Noida had actually verified the remedial steps taken. Furthermore, the affidavit is also silent whether in Noida, there is any nodal officer nominated to deal with emergency situations and to coordinate between various agencies in such emergencies.”

“The affidavit is also silent as to who was the officer of Noida Authority, who had reached the spot, when the entire incident was being broadcast live. We expect that an affidavit indicating the above should be filed by the next date fixed,” added the bench in its order dated March 17.

The court said: “In the instant matter, we find that at the time of the incident, there was no shortage of information to the first respondents (state) as the distress call was immediately made by the father of the deceased. The recipient of SOS had immediately informed the police and the nearest patrolling team had reached there.”

“Fire brigade, SDRF and NDRF also reached there. Before drowning, there was a substantial period of time, in which, rescue could have been attempted. It is not in dispute that as per the pleadings set up before us, the expert teams of SDRF and NDRF were available at the site. Even though the responses have been filed by the Authority and the State, till date no response of SDRF and NDRF is filed,” it added.

Counsels for the state government and the NDRF sought an adjournment to apprise the court.

On this, the court fixed March 20 as the next date of hearing in the case, saying: “We expect that the responses are to be filed within two days and the affidavit be served upon to the petitioner in person on or before the next date fixed in the matter. It is also expected that the responses must indicate the steps taken for rescue and also the training received by both the response teams for preparation of emergencies. The response must also indicate the details of the team present at the site along with the name of the commanding officer of the said teams.”