Mumbai's Billboard Tragedy: Who's Ultimately Accountable?

In a tragic turn of events, Mumbai was rocked by the collapse of a towering 100-foot billboard opposite a fuel station in Chheda Nagar. Sachin Yadav, a 23-year-old petrol pump worker, was among the 14 people who died, with over 60 others injured. As the city grapples with the aftermath, political leaders promise compensation and launch investigations. Amid the condolences, a pressing question emerges: who is ultimately accountable?

While courts have addressed the illegal proliferation of hoardings in cities and there are provisions in place to regulate outdoor advertising, jurisprudence is largely silent on compensating victims and their families or determining liability in the event of such tragedies.

The Supreme Court, as early as 1997, unequivocally prioritised the safety of road users. It emphasised the removal of hazardous hoardings that impede safe traffic movement, a mandate echoed by the Delhi High Court in its order passed in 2007. This led to the formulation of the Delhi Outdoor Advertising Policy in 2008.

In February this year, the Bombay High Court issued strict directives, addressing the rampant spread of illegal hoardings across Mumbai. The court declared that no political, religious, or commercial entity has the right to exploit public spaces for personal advertising gains. The plea was first presented before the court in 2011 and during the proceedings, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corp. highlighted ongoing efforts to remove such hoardings.

Similar directives have been issued by various high courts across the country, including those in Delhi and Himachal Pradesh. However, the most tragic instances have emerged under the Madras High Court's jurisdiction.

In 2008, the Madras High Court banned hoardings from being erected without the right licensing. Several other such rulings against illegally put-up hoardings have also come about from the high court.

Then, in 2019, as reported previously by NDTV, a Chennai software engineer lost her life when a hoarding collapsed on her and a truck ran over her. In response, the court directed disciplinary action against civic body officials and awarded Rs 5 lakh in interim compensation to the victim's family.

The amount itself was directed to be collected from the civic body officials who failed to do their duty, eventually leading to the tragedy. This could become the basis for decisions in such cases.