Archive · 8 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Signals Larger Action After PG Collapse
A paying-guest accommodation collapsed, which led to a court case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta called the incident horrific.
The Delhi High Court has already ordered an investigation.
The investigation will examine the role of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
The High Court also wants safety checks at PG accommodations across the city.
Mehta suggested that the Supreme Court case could be moved to the High Court.
The Supreme Court said it had something more in mind.
It did not publicly explain what that larger action would be.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta called the PG collapse a “horrific incident.”
The Delhi High Court has ordered a high-level inquiry into the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s role.
The High Court also directed a citywide safety audit of paying-guest accommodations.
Mehta said the Supreme Court application could potentially be transferred to the Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court indicated it may be considering a broader course of action, without specifying what it would be.
- Who
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
- What
- The Supreme Court is considering further action after a PG accommodation collapse, while a High Court inquiry and citywide safety audit are already underway.
- Where
- Delhi.
- Why
- The action follows the collapse of a PG accommodation and concerns about safety and the role of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
- Incident
- A PG accommodation collapse described as a “horrific incident.”
- Existing inquiry
- The Delhi High Court ordered a high-level inquiry.
- Agency examined
- The inquiry will examine the role of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
- Safety measure
- The High Court directed a citywide safety audit of PG accommodations.
- Suggested procedure
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested transferring the Supreme Court application to the Delhi High Court.
- Supreme Court position
- The Court indicated it was considering a broader action but did not specify it.