The Allahabad High Court has clarified that individual compensation claims arising from the Mahakumbh stampede must be decided by local authorities, not the Judicial Inquiry Commission. The Court also set a strict timeline for deciding such claims.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Sanjay Kumar Sharma, seeking compensation related to a death allegedly caused during the stampede on Mauni Amavasya (29 January 2025) at the Mahakumbh in Prayagraj.
During earlier proceedings, the Court had directed authorities to clarify whether the Judicial Inquiry Commission was responsible for deciding individual compensation claims. In response, affidavits were filed by the Kumbh Mela officials and the Secretary of the Judicial Inquiry Commission.
Read also:- Patna High Court Upholds Rejection of Mutual Divorce Plea, Says One-Year Separation Rule Not Met
The Commission, through its affidavit, stated that deciding compensation claims was beyond its scope and had already returned such matters to the Mela administration for appropriate action
The Bench examined the terms of reference of the three-member Judicial Inquiry Commission constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Government. It noted that the Commission’s role was limited to:
- Identifying causes of the incident
- Suggesting preventive measures
- Assessing whether loss of life or property occurred in general terms
The Court observed that the Commission was not tasked with deciding individual compensation claims.
Importantly, the Bench highlighted that both the State and authorities had not denied the occurrence of the stampede or the fact that compensation had already been paid in some cases.
“The State having not denied that compensation has been paid to some victims, it amounts to an admission that loss of life did occur,” the bench noted.
The Court indicated that once the State has acknowledged the occurrence of the stampede, the Commission’s role does not extend to verifying such facts in individual compensation claims.
Read also:- Supreme Court Refuses to Create New Hate Speech Laws, Says Parliament Must Decide
The High Court laid down clear principles for handling such claims:
- Compensation claims must be filed before the District Administration, not the Inquiry Commission.
- The District Magistrate (Mela)/Meladhikari is responsible for verifying each case.
- Authorities must examine evidence like inquest reports and postmortem reports as primary documents.
- These documents should be treated as reliable unless contradicted by strong evidence.
- The Inquiry Commission’s role remains general and does not extend to individual compensation determinations.
In this case, the Court noted that:
- An inquest report and postmortem report of the deceased Shiva Devi were already on record.
- These documents had not been disputed by the authorities with any contrary material.
Given this, the Court found that the claim required prompt consideration by the competent authority.
The High Court directed the Meladhikari (Mela Officer) to take a final decision on the petitioner’s compensation claim within three weeks and to file a compliance affidavit before the Court.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 7 May 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs State of UP & Others
Case Number: WRIT - C No. 38751 of 2025
Judge: Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J. and Hon’ble Satya Veer Singh, J.
Decision Date: 13 April 2026
