In a significant move to ensure justice for the victims of the 2025 Mahakumbh Mela stampede, the Allahabad High Court has issued a stern directive to the Uttar Pradesh government and the Mela Authority. Refusing to allow any further bureaucratic delays, the Court has set a strict 30-day deadline to finalize the compensation claim for the family of a woman who lost her life in the tragic incident.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi made it clear that the pending final report of the State’s Inquiry Commission cannot be used as an excuse to withhold relief from the victim’s kin. The Court warned that if its orders are not complied with within the specified timeframe, it will be compelled to take a “serious view of the matter.”
The tragedy dates back to the early hours of January 29, 2025, during the auspicious occasion of Mauni Amavasya. At the Sangam holy dip point in Prayagraj, a massive surge of devotees led to a devastating stampede. While official figures varied, reports suggested that between 30 to 39 people lost their lives, and dozens were left injured.
Among the deceased was the wife of the petitioner, Uday Pratap Singh. According to the petition, his wife suffered severe "crush injuries" to her rib cage during the chaos. However, the tragedy was compounded by administrative lapses; the petitioner alleged that his wife’s body was handed over to him from the Motilal Nehru Medical College mortuary without a proper inquest or an autopsy report, leaving the family with no official documentation regarding the cause of death.
This is not the first time the High Court has expressed its displeasure over the state's handling of the matter. During a hearing on June 6 last year, a vacation bench had slammed the Uttar Pradesh government for the delay in distributing the promised ex gratia compensation.
At that time, the Court described the State’s conduct as "untenable" and a reflection of "apathy to the plight of the citizen." The judges had reminded the government that once a compensation package is announced, it becomes the State’s "bounden duty" to ensure that the payment is made in a timely and dignified manner. The Court emphasized that families who have suffered irreversible losses should not be made to "beg" for the help they were promised.
During the recent hearing on January 9, 2026, the State Government attempted to justify the delay. Represented by Additional Advocate General (AAG) Anoop Trivedi, the State submitted that the Commission of Inquiry is still actively examining the claims.
The State argued that:
- The petitioner’s statement was recorded only recently, on December 17, 2025.
- The Mela Authority and the Commission are coordinating to verify deaths linked to the stampede.
- The timeline for the inquiry had been extended in the "larger public interest" because many dependents and guardians of victims were approaching the Commission late.
The Bench, however, was not convinced by these arguments. The judges observed that while the inquiry into the causes of the stampede might take time, the administrative process for paying compensation to identified victims must not be stalled indefinitely.
"Although this Court on June 6, 2025, passed a detailed order requiring the authorities to file their personal affidavits… at this stage, we find it necessary to get the issue of claim of compensation of the petitioner finalized at the earliest," the Court noted.
By decoupling the payment of compensation from the submission of the final inquiry report, the Court has sent a strong message: administrative procedures must serve the people, not obstruct their relief.
The Court’s order has put the authorities on a ticking clock:
- 30-Day Deadline: Both the Inquiry Commission and the Mela Authority must finalize the petitioner’s compensation claim within 30 days.
- Compliance Affidavit: AAG Anoop Trivedi has been directed to file an affidavit by the next date of hearing, detailing the decision taken by the authorities.
- Warning of Consequences: The Court explicitly stated that failure to file the compliance affidavit would lead to a "serious view," which in legal terms often implies the initiation of contempt proceedings or the summoning of top officials.
This case highlights the concept of "Constitutional Tort" and the State's liability. Legal experts suggest that the Court's stance reinforces the principle that the State acts as a "trustee" of its citizens. When a tragedy occurs under the State’s management—especially at an event as heavily regulated as the Mahakumbh—the government is obligated to provide immediate care and remedy.
The Court’s concern regarding the lack of an autopsy report also points toward a potential breach of standard operating procedures (SOPs) during mass casualty events. By demanding a resolution within 30 days, the High Court is attempting to bridge the gap between a government’s public announcement and the actual delivery of relief to those in need.
The matter is now listed for February 18, 2026, for the filing of the compliance affidavit.
- Case Title: Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Others
- Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi
- Representing State: AAG Anoop Trivedi