Lucknow Coaching Fire: Allahabad HC Flags Regulatory Failures, Demands Safety SOP

Lucknow Coaching Fire: Allahabad HC Flags Regulatory Failures, Demands Safety SOP

On 24 June 2026, a devastating fire broke out at a three-storey commercial building in the Puraniya locality of Aliganj, Lucknow, housing an animation coaching centre. The blaze claimed the lives of at least 15 students, most of them aged between 16 and 25 years, with some reports placing the toll as high as 18. The majority of deaths were caused by suffocation, as students found themselves trapped in the upper floors with no viable escape route. The building, originally sanctioned for residential use, had been illegally converted into a commercial establishment operating without the requisite fire safety clearances.

The Allahabad High Court took suo motu cognisance of the tragedy in a PIL titled Shivendu Pandey v. State of U.P. and expressed deep anguish over the preventable loss of life. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to frame a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for fire safety in coaching centres, commercial establishments, and multi-storey buildings. This article examines the Court's observations, the regulatory gaps exposed by the tragedy, and what the ruling means for fire safety compliance across India.

The Aliganj Fire: What Happened

The fire erupted on the ground floor of the building and rapidly spread to the upper storeys, where the animation coaching centre and a gaming zone were operational. Students attending classes on the second and third floors were trapped as smoke engulfed the narrow staircase, which served as the only exit route. Several students attempted to jump from the windows in desperation, sustaining severe injuries. Emergency services arrived at the scene, but the narrow lanes surrounding the building hampered rescue operations.

Preliminary investigations revealed that the building's map had been sanctioned strictly for residential purposes, yet commercial activities were being conducted without authorisation. The coaching centre lacked a valid fire No Objection Certificate (NOC), and no fire safety equipment such as extinguishers, smoke detectors, or emergency exits had been installed. For those unfamiliar with the fire NOC process in India, the requirements and procedures are detailed in our guide on how to get a Fire NOC in India.

Allahabad High Court Observations: Preventable Loss of Life

The Allahabad High Court, while hearing the PIL, made several significant observations. The Court noted that the loss of lives was entirely preventable had the authorities performed their regulatory functions diligently. The bench highlighted that existing laws exempt buildings below 15 metres in height from obtaining fire safety certificates, a statutory gap that the Aliganj tragedy has now exposed as dangerously inadequate.

The Court questioned the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and municipal authorities for permitting commercial activities in a residentially sanctioned building. The bench observed that the regulatory machinery had failed at multiple levels: the building plan approval process did not flag the change in land use, the fire department had not conducted inspections, and the local administration had turned a blind eye to the illegal commercial operations.

The Court directed the UP government to frame a comprehensive SOP addressing fire safety in coaching centres, gaming zones, and similar commercial establishments operating in residential or mixed-use buildings. The SOP must include provisions for mandatory fire safety audits, periodic inspections, and accountability mechanisms for defaulting officers. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 4 August 2026. Similar concerns about state accountability in cases of institutional negligence have been addressed in the context of custodial death liability.

Punjab and Haryana HC Also Takes Note of Coaching Fire Safety

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken cognisance of fire safety concerns in coaching centres following the Lucknow tragedy. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation, sought a status report from the Punjab authorities detailing steps taken to ensure fire safety in coaching centres and educational institutions across the state.

The PIL, filed by Advocate Nikhil Thamman, highlighted that many coaching centres across Punjab and Chandigarh operate in basements without fire safety certificates and in violation of the Chandigarh Building Rules, 2017, and Fire Safety Rules, 1991. The petitioner argued that such institutions endanger the lives of thousands of students who attend classes in buildings that lack basic safety infrastructure. The occupational safety framework that governs such commercial establishments has recently been updated under the OSHWC Central Rules 2026.

The Broader Regulatory Problem: Coaching Centres and Fire Safety in India

India's coaching industry has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, with centres mushrooming in residential areas, basements, and buildings never designed for commercial occupancy. Despite repeated tragedies, including the 2019 Surat coaching centre fire that killed 22 students, the regulatory response has been inconsistent. The National Building Code of India (NBC) 2016 prescribes fire safety standards for commercial establishments, but enforcement remains fragmented across state and municipal authorities.

Several key issues contribute to the problem. First, the exemption of buildings below 15 metres from fire NOC requirements creates a dangerous gap, as the Lucknow fire demonstrated. Second, many coaching centres operate without valid commercial licences, making them invisible to the regulatory apparatus. Third, even where fire safety norms exist, enforcement is often lax due to understaffed fire departments and corruption. Fourth, the absence of a centralised registration system for coaching centres means that authorities lack basic information about how many such institutions operate and where. Individuals who wish to hold authorities accountable for such lapses may consider filing a complaint against negligent officials.

What the SOP Should Address

The SOP directed by the Allahabad High Court will need to address several critical areas. Mandatory fire safety audits before any coaching centre is granted a commercial licence should be a baseline requirement. Buildings housing coaching centres must have at least two independent exit routes, fire extinguishers on every floor, smoke detectors, and sprinkler systems where feasible. The SOP should also mandate that coaching centres display their fire NOC and emergency evacuation plans prominently, and that regular fire drills be conducted at least once every quarter.

Additionally, the SOP should include accountability provisions for officials who approve building plans or grant licences without verifying fire safety compliance. The Court's direction to hold defaulting officers accountable signals a shift from institutional blame to individual responsibility, a principle that could have far-reaching implications for regulatory enforcement across sectors.

Related Reading

For more on related legal topics, see our articles on how to file a consumer complaint online through e-Daakhil, the West Bengal Anti-Social Activities Bill 2026 and detention powers, and the Delhi HC ruling on writ petitions against private media for privacy violations.

Key Takeaways

1. At least 15 students were killed in a fire at an animation coaching centre in Lucknow's Aliganj area on 24 June 2026, with reports suggesting the toll may have reached 18. 2. The Allahabad High Court, hearing PIL Shivendu Pandey v. State of U.P., directed the UP government to frame a comprehensive fire safety SOP for coaching centres and commercial establishments. 3. The Court flagged the statutory exemption of buildings below 15 metres from fire safety certification as a dangerous regulatory gap that needs urgent revision. 4. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also sought status reports from Punjab authorities on fire safety measures in coaching centres. 5. The Allahabad HC directed accountability for defaulting officers, signalling a shift toward individual responsibility for regulatory failures. The case is listed for further hearing on 4 August 2026.