Editorial-25/06/2026
Viksit and Surakshit: On the Lucknow fire
The Lucknow fire that killed students and injured others is not merely an isolated tragedy; it is a stark demonstration of how rapid socio-economic change without commensurate governance and safety systems turns aspiration into vulnerability. This editorial argues that India’s march towards a Viksit Bharat (developed India) must be inseparable from creating a Surakshit Bharat (safe India): stronger regulation, quicker enforcement, transparent accountability, and a culture that values human life over short-term profit are non-negotiable.
A pattern of preventable failures
The immediate facts of the incident are painfully familiar: a multi-storey structure operating in ways it was not authorised to, overcrowded rooms, inadequate means of escape, deficient detection and suppression systems, and management practices that turned a building into a death trap for those inside. These features have reappeared across recent fires elsewhere in the country, exposing a pattern — not a one-off lapse. The repetition suggests systemic weakness: laws that are often adequate on paper but are rendered ineffective by weak implementation, administrative inertia, and sometimes collusive tolerance of unsafe conversions of residential spaces into commercial ones.
Urbanisation, informal economies and regulatory gaps
India’s booming education and services economies have produced new demands for space — coaching centres, hostels, laboratories and low-cost housing for students and young workers — often met by converting residential buildings or by makeshift constructions in peri-urban pockets. That dynamic creates a diffuse, informal layer in cities that falls between regulatory grids: municipal permissions, fire clearances, and police oversight are either absent, incomplete, or not enforced. The consequence is an ecosystem in which owners and operators can externalise safety costs while individuals, often aspirational students from modest backgrounds, bear catastrophic risk.
Implementation failures and accountability deficits
Beyond the physical lack of safety infrastructure lies a governance problem. Many disaster-prone edifices carry prior notices, demolition orders, or have been flagged by civic agencies, yet remain operational for years. When notices are issued and then rescinded or ignored, the signals sent are corrosive: regulations become optional, and the penalties for non-compliance are lower than the profits from illegal commercial use. Post-tragedy rituals — inquiries, suspension of a few officials, compensation cheques — follow a predictable cycle. But absent institutional reform and enforceable criminal liability where warranted, such cycles only postpone the next disaster.
Technical shortfalls and affordability trade-offs
Technical solutions exist: properly designed escape routes, multiple exits, emergency staircases, sprinkler and detection systems, clear signage, and regular inspections enforced by independent fire-safety auditors. But these measures cost money, and for many small operators or building owners the calculus leans toward minimising expense. Here lie two policy imperatives. First, the state must make compliance simpler and less costly through clear, consolidated guidelines tailored for small operators (for example, graduated requirements based on occupancy and risk profiles). Second, there must be targeted financial and logistical support — subsidies, low-interest loans, or tax incentives — to retrofit high-risk structures, especially where vulnerable groups such as students live and study.
Data, inspection regimes and technology
A Viksit Bharat needs empirical foundations for its safety interventions. A nationwide, scientifically designed assessment of building safety — even a statistically valid sample survey of urban structures — would provide a baseline for prioritising action. Such an exercise should be followed by a routine, risk-based inspection regime where data drives resource allocation: high-risk neighbourhoods get more frequent checks and faster remediation timelines. Digital dashboards that track compliance status, written notices, remediation timelines and verification by independent auditors would increase transparency and public accountability. Mobile-based grievance and whistle-blower channels should be integrated with fast-track civic responses.
Law, deterrence and restoration of trust
Law reform is required on two fronts. First, municipal and state statutes should simplify and harmonise building-use classifications and ensure that conversions to commercial use require an expedited cross-verification among fire, municipal and electrical authorities before operations begin. Second, criminalising culpable negligence in egregious cases — where prior notices were ignored or corruption enabled dangerous conversions — would restore deterrence. Accountability must be systemic: individual suspensions are not enough when the system routinely allows hazardous practices to persist. Judicial and administrative remedies must be swift and visible, signalling that human lives cannot be traded for convenience or profit.
Protecting the vulnerable: students and low-income occupants
Students and low-income occupants are particularly vulnerable to these failures; they often accept cramped, low-cost accommodation because alternatives are unaffordable. Policy responses should therefore include creating certified student-housing options, incentivising educational institutions to provide or partner in safe accommodation, and establishing rapid-response safety audits for clusters known to house large numbers of students. Public awareness campaigns targeting students and parents about fire safety rights, evacuation plans and the importance of verified accommodation can also reduce risk.
Administrative redesign and inter-agency cooperation
Fire safety cannot be siloed. Municipal corporations, fire services, police, power utilities, and urban development authorities must operate through coordinated, institutionalised protocols. Single-window clearance for permissible uses should be linked with automatic checks for fire compliance; building occupations without a valid fire NOC should trigger immediate disconnection of utilities until compliance is achieved. Such administrative redesign may seem heavy-handed, but the alternative is a continuation of ad-hocism that costs lives.
Culture of safety and civic engagement
Regulation and enforcement are necessary but insufficient without a culture that prizes safety. That culture must be cultivated through education in schools and colleges, mandatory safety drills in institutions, and community-level preparation — especially in high-density neighborhoods. Civil society, resident welfare associations and student bodies can be trained and empowered to audit local risks and to press for remedial measures. Citizens must be partners in safety, not merely victims waiting for rescue.
Conclusion: development’s moral contract
The Lucknow fire is a painful reminder that development measured only in economic or educational metrics is incomplete if it fails to protect people. Viksit Bharat must include robust, enforceable systems that make Surakshit Bharat a lived reality for all citizens, especially the young and vulnerable who pursue their dreams in cramped rooms and coaching centres. Policymakers must convert outrage into sustained reform: empirical surveys, risk-based inspections, simplified compliance, targeted financial supports, inter-agency coordination, and enforceable penalties for gross negligence. Only by aligning incentives, law and public morality can India ensure that aspiration no longer counts as an invitation to risk.
Download Pdf
Get in Touch
