REGULATING RISK IN INDIA’S CAPITAL: URBAN INFORMALITY, BUILDING SAFETY, AND THE LESSONS FROM MAJNU KA TILA

Delhi occupies a peculiar place in the India’s urban imagination. Being the capital of the nation, it is both a historic city layered with centuries of habitation and a contemporary metropolis tasked with projecting India’s aspirations as a global power.¹ The rapid urbanisation, commercialisation and population increase have overwhelmed the city of Delhi in its planning and regulatory policies. As a result, the city has routinely resorted to tolerance, post-facto regularisation, and selective enforcement of building norms and statutory planning.

This has culminated in huge urban ghettos within which both residential and commercial activities operate in legal grey zones where compliance with land use patterns, building permissions, and safety standards exist more as an exception than as the norm. Violation of regulations, unlicensed construction, and non-compliance of safety standards are systematically ignored, until they result in judicial intervention or a human catastrophe. A recent PIL before the Delhi High Court illustrates this pattern as it raises concerns on regulation of Majnu ka Tila. This case is not a mere litigation on unauthorised commercial facilities, but rather a statement against the institutional frailty in the urban regulatory framework of Delhi especially with regards to safety regulations and enforcement of the National Building Code.²

Majnu ka Tila and the Anatomy of Regulatory Failure

The proceedings before the Delhi High Court were based on the PIL made by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which highlighted that a number of cafes and commercial outlets in the Majnu ka Tila locality were existing without approved building plans and land-use regulations.³ Severe gaps in adherence to the basic safety standards, including insufficient emergency exits, inadequate staircases, and serious violations of fire precaution measures were identified.⁴ Such violations assumed greater importance because of the density of commercial activity and footfall in the area. The Court observed that these premises operated in multi-storey buildings which lacked any authorisation for commercial use and posed an immediate threat to the public safety. The matter before the Court thus went beyond unauthorised construction to a more fundamental question of whether economic activity could be permitted in an urban setting where the minimum statutory safety standards were blatantly ignored.

The National Building Code and the Illusion of Compliance

In light of these findings, the Delhi High Court ordered the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Fire Services to ensure stricter enforcement of National Building Code (NBC). The NBC, issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards, establishes uniform minimum standards of structural safety, fire precaution, means of evacuation and occupancy norms in urban localities.⁵ It serves as the baseline safety framework, regardless of the nature or location of the building.

Theoretically, NBC compliance is non-negotiable for any construction hosting public occupancy. However, the ground reality is quite appalling as the enforcement is sporadic. Illegal conversions and commercialisation in urban villages are not scrutinised in time, and Fire Safety Certificates and occupancy permissions are issued without adequate verification.⁶ The buildings that violate the NBC requirements remain in operation over years and attain commercial value, externalising the potential safety risks on the general public. Litigation-based enforcement is abrupt and responsive, rarely inquiring as to why the regulatory oversight failed at the first place.

Majnu ka Tila reveals the human price of such a lacuna: the areas where commercial value is concentrated while violating NBC norms, form latent catastrophe zones. Such an order, commanding NBC standards enforcement, is not sufficient but necessary, since the systemic vulnerability is an upstream problem of municipal permitting, licensing, and continued compliance monitoring.

Recurrent warnings, Repeated negligence

The worries put forward in Majnu ka Tila are not unprecedented. In an earlier intervention relating to the Hauz Khas Village, the Delhi High Court described the area as a “ticking time bomb”, noting that unchecked commercialisation had far outpaced compliance with building and fire safety laws.⁷ Even with robust judicial interventions, enforcement activities remain scattered and structural reforms curtailed.

More recently, the tragic drowning of a UPSC aspirant in the basement of a coaching institute at Old Rajinder Nagar made the consequences of unauthorised construction and safety breaches a national issue.⁸ The institute was reported to be in violation of building and fire safety standards, a reality which had existed even with the elaborate regulatory framework. Although factually different, these cases echo the issue of safety violations that are not prohibited until they lead to judicial intervention or irreversible damage.

Where the Law Falters

The continued occurrence of such events is indicative of a more fundamental issue with regulations. The city of Delhi is regulated by elaborate planning tools: master plans define the permissible land applications, municipal byelaws and statutes control the approval of plans and building permits, and the NBC contains model technical standards. It is not the lack of legal instruments that is the problem but rather their fragmented implementation.

The land use is controlled by the planning authorities without ensuring adherence to the building norms, commercial activity is licensed by the municipal bodies without strict structural scrutiny, clearances on fire safety are either postponed or neglected. Regularisation schemes also make the law more complicated by emphasising more on tenure security and economic activity, while neglecting structural safety. By doing so, they strengthen the perception that adherence to building regulations and safety rules is an activity that can be postponed indefinitely, undermining the very credibility of urban regulation.

Towards a Legally Coherent Response

The Majnu ka Tila case indicates the need for a shift from reactive enforcement to a more structured regulation accountability. To begin with, the National Building Code should be incorporated in regularisation and redevelopment policies and not considered as a secondary issue. Secondly, commercial activity within municipalities must be contingent upon proving compliance with safety standards, which must be audited on a regular basis rather than one-time approvals.

In addition, more explicit statutory penalties on long-term non-compliance should be imposed in order to encourage corrective action. Above all, the planning authorities, municipal corporations, and fire services should be coordinated in a more institutionalised manner so that the regulation of safety could be proactive rather than crisis-driven.

Conclusion

The Majnu ka Tila order does not solve the informal urbanism in Delhi nor does it proclaim to do so. What it succeeds in doing is revealing the expenses of running a global city through tolerance and preferential enforcement. When the provisions of the National Building Code are regarded as negotiable, urban informality is no longer a challenge to planning but instead it becomes a public hazard.

To help Delhi balance its development goals with public safety, the regulatory frameworks should be implemented with uniformity and legal consistency.⁹ Courts can shed some light on failure of regulation but sustainable reform lies in administrative responsibility and renewed adherence to the rule of law in urban governance. Until this change is made, the national capital will continue to languish in between regularisation and removal: managing risk rather than preventing it.

Citations

1 J. Hosagrahar, Heritage and Modernity in India, in Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia 283 (Patrick Daly & Tim Winter eds., Routledge 2012).

2 Arnav Singh & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 19643/2025 (Delhi High Court, 24/12/2025).

3 Delhi HC Orders Action Against Unauthorised Cafés in Majnu ka Tila Over Safety Violations, LiveLaw (24/12/2025), available at https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-action-unauthorised-restaurants-majnu-ka-tila-514371, last seen on 09/01/2026.

4 H. Yadav, Despite HC Order, Safety Violations Continue at Majnu ka Tila, The Tribune (Delhi Ed.) (01/01/2026), available at https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/delhi/despite-hc-safety-violation-order-business-as-usual-at-majnu-ka-tila/, last seen on 10/01/2026.

5 Bureau of Indian Standards, National Building Code of India, 2016, available at https://www.bis.gov.in/standards/technical-department/national-building-code/, last seen on 11/01/2026.

6 A. Zimmer, Enumerating the Semi-Visible: The Politics of Regularising Delhi’s Unauthorised Colonies, 47 Economic & Political Weekly 89 (28 July 2012), available on JSTOR at https://www.jstor.org/stable/23251772, last seen on 10/01/2026.

7 R. Chatterjee, Hauz Khas Village is a ‘ticking time bomb’: Delhi High Court, The Indian Express (14/09/2017), available at https://indianexpress.com/article/delhi/hauz-khas-village-is-ticking-time-bomb-says-delhi-high-court-4843994/, last seen on 11/01/2026.

8 S. Sundaram, UPSC Aspirant Dies After Basement Floods at Coaching Centre in Old Rajinder Nagar, The Hindu (10/01/2025), available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/upsc-aspirants-drowning-case-owner-knowingly-used-basement-for-commercial-purpose-without-authorisation-alleges-cbi/article68592381.ece , last seen on 11/01/2026.

9 N. Banks, Urban Informality as a Site of Critical Analysis, 100 Journal of Development Studies 23 (2020), available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220388.2019.1577384, last seen on 11/01/2026.