Uphaar fire tragedy: Delhi court frames charges against convict Sushil Ansal in passport case

A Delhi court has ordered framing of charges against the Uphaar fire tragedy convict Sushil Ansal in a separate case for allegedly concealing criminal cases and submitting false declarations to renew a passport.

Ansal was booked by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police in 2019, and he was accused of furnishing false information, as he failed to declare his conviction in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire tragedy.

Also Read | Remembering the Uphaar tragedy

Chief Judicial Magistrate Shriya Agrawal of Patiala House Courts, in a November 28 order, held that “prima facie, there is sufficient material” to proceed against Ansal for offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 177 (furnishing false information to a public servant), 181 (making false statement on oath) IPC and Section 12 (offenses related to passports) of the Passports Act, relisting the matter for formal framing of charges on January 13, 2026.

The court said Ansal “has consciously concealed the details of criminal cases pending against him as also the order of conviction” in the sworn declaration submitted with his 2013 Tatkaal passport application. The concealment, the judge noted, was used “to induce under misrepresentation, the Regional Passport Office into issuing the passport.” The Court said the accused not only withheld information on convictions and pending FIRs but “consciously did not give proper details of his previous address, to evade detection of true criminal history”, adding that the alleged false statements were made on two separate occasions, both in 2013 and in 2018.

The court further elaborated in the order dated November 28 and said, “It is a given that subsequent acknowledgment of ‘unintentional mistake’ by the accused, cannot erode the previous culpability, as the accused had remained in possession and used the valuable document throughout based on misleading declarations in breach of the statutory requirements.” Rejecting the defence claim that prosecution was barred from filing a case in the absence of a written complaint, the Court held the condition stood satisfied because the case was initiated pursuant to Delhi High Court directions.

Referring to a Supreme Court precedent, the order said a High Court directive is “on a par with direction of an administrative superior public servant” for the purposes of cognisance.

The defence claim of “double jeopardy” was also rejected, as the court elaborated that the penalty imposed by the Passport Authority and the criminal proceeding in court are separate processes and therefore cannot be considered punishment for the same offence. “The Passport Authority imposing penalty, cannot and would not substitute for formal criminal proceedings under the statute imposing criminal sanction, which can only be considered in judicial proceedings, but for which, a case of double jeopardy would not arise.” Lastly, the court declined to proceed on offences regarding sections 192 and 197 IPC.

Reacting to the order, Neelam Krishnamoorthy, chairperson of the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT), called the development “not an isolated incident” and said it marked Ansal’s third criminal case.

“Each time, he is let off or given concessions on the grounds of ‘old age’. But the truth is: he was already 64 when he tampered with judicial records and 74 when he renewed his passport from the authorities by giving false information and without seeking the permission of the court. How long can one individual continue to commit offence after offence and still evade meaningful accountability? The justice system must send a clear message that repeated wrongdoing cannot become a lifelong escape act,” said Mr. Krishnamoorthy.

He has already been held guilty in the Uphaar fire tragedy case, where 59 innocent lives were lost and has also been convicted in the evidence-tampering case, an act that was nothing short of an insult to the courts and the justice system, she said.

The Uphaar Cinema case pertains to the fire that had broken out at the film hall during the screening of the Hindi film ‘Border’ on June 13, 1997, claiming 59 lives.

AVUT has previously been allowed to assist the prosecution in this case in an order dated August 4.

The court had held that the association, at whose instance the proceedings were initiated, was entitled to assist the prosecution and no prejudice would be caused to the accused.

The Supreme Court in September 2015 held the Ansal brothers, Gopal and Sushil Ansal, guilty of causing death due to negligence in that case.

Apart from the one year sentence the two brothers had to undergo, the Supreme Court fined them with ₹60 crore, to be used for building a trauma centre in the national capital.