The Allahabad High Court has clarified that every ex gratia compensation claim for the Mahakumbh Mela stampede has to be made before the District Administration and not before the State Judicial Commission.

The High Court has also asked the District Magistrate (Mela)/ Meladhikari to verify the facts as to the loss of death or property of an individual during the stampede on January 29, 2025.

The Division Bench of Justice Satya Veer Singh and Justice Ajit Kumar ordered, “Every claim of compensation has to be made before the District Administration and not before the State Judicial Commission.”

“In deciding the matter of claims, it is the District Magistrate (Mela)/ the Meladhikari, who has to verify the facts as to the loss of death or property of an individual during stampede on 29.01.2025”, it added.

Advocate Ankit Kumar Pal represented the Petitioner while Advocate Abhinav Gaur represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case revolved around the claim of a petitioner regarding the death of his mother in a stampede that took place on the date of Mauni Amavasya at the Mahakumbh mela organized by the State Government in Prayagraj. A compliance affidavit was filed by the Secretary of the Judicial Enquiry Commission wherein it was mentioned that the Commission of Enquiry, while recording the statement of the relatives of the deceased, got them examined for the purposes of recording a finding in the terms of the enquiry of the Commission. The claim regarding ex gratia compensation, as was announced by the State Government, could not be considered by the Commission, and hence, the Commission returned the file of claim compensation of the petitioner to the Meladhikari.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that neither any of the Additional Advocate Generals nor any of the State panel counsel could deny the factum of a stampede that took place on January 29, 2025 and that out of those who died, some of them had already been paid compensation.

One of the questions that had to be answered by the Commission was whether there was any loss of life and property due to the stampede that happened. On this aspect, the Bench stated that when there was no denial on the part of the State as well as the Mela Administration regarding some loss of life and property in a stampede that happened on the Mauni Amavasya day during Mahakumbh Mela, the term of enquiry on this point became useless and could not be stretched to mean that after the Commission gives finding regarding the happening of the stampede that any payment of compensation would arrive.

“When the State itself admits that such incident had taken place, then the Commission was not to any further enquire as to whether such an stampede happened or not. The State having not denied that it had paid compensation to the dependents of some of those who had lost their life, it also amounts to an admission that there was a loss of life and property”, it added.

The Bench thus culled out certain principles for consideration by the Mela and District Administration, besides the fact that a judicial enquiry was ordered by the State Government in the matter. These include:

  • The material placed before the Meladhikari has to be examined in each case while arriving at a finding that such death took place on the fateful day, Mauni Amavasya.
  • The records produced, the documents like the inquest report by the police officers and the postmortem report prepared by the Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent of the hospital, have to be taken as undisputed material documents unless disputed with valid contrary evidence for the determination of death during the stampede.
  • The Meladhikari has to take a final decision on the matter of claim of compensation within a period of 30 days of its presentation.

Taking note of the inquest report prepared by the Sub-Inspector, of the deceased Shiva Devi and also the postmortem report of the Medical Officer, the Bench ordered, “Meladhikari is to take a decision in three weeks' time. We direct Meladhikari to take a decision within three weeks from today and file a compliance affidavit by the next date fixed.”

The matter has now been listed on May 7, 2026.

Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State Of UP (Case No.:Writ - C No. - 38751 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Ankit Kumar Pal, Praveen Kumar Singh

Respondent: Advocate Abhinav Gaur, Chief Standing Counsel, Advocate Kartikeya Saran

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Satya Veer SinghJustice Ajit Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.