Delhi Police has told the Delhi High Court that six people arrested in connection with the Satya Niketan building collapse failed to take adequate safety precautions during construction and repair work, creating conditions that endangered the lives of PG residents and ultimately resulted in deaths and serious injuries.
In an eight-page status report filed on September 21, the police also alleged that the accused left the site after the collapse instead of taking responsibility or helping in the immediate aftermath.
The report is scheduled to be considered by a bench headed by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia on Friday.
The collapse of the five-storey building, which housed a paying guest accommodation called Hostel Daze for Delhi University students, killed at least seven people and injured five others. The structure came down around 1.30pm on September 6 while renovation work was under way on the ground floor. The building was estimated to be 40 to 50 years old.
Investigators have since focused on the ongoing construction work, the building's structural condition, its commercial use and the manner in which the PG was being operated. Earlier reports indicated that renovation work had been under way for more than a week and that water had accumulated in the basement, potentially weakening the old structure.
Police detail alleged lapses by property owners
According to the status report, property owners Urmila Gupta, her husband Hari Ram Gupta and their son Mahesh Gupta jointly managed the premises. Police said they had not obtained land-use conversion permission and had commercially let out the property without the requisite approval from the authorities.
The owners also allegedly failed to engage a qualified structural engineer or architect for repairs to the basement or structural modifications carried out at the ground-floor shops and other parts of the building.
The police said there was no complaint concerning the property in records maintained at South Campus police station before the incident.
“Prima facie”, the six arrested accused had failed to take adequate safety precautions during construction, repair, modification and alteration work carried out in and around the building, according to the report. Police said this created a situation that endangered human life and ultimately caused deaths and serious injuries to PG students and others.
The report further alleged that the accused left the spot after the collapse rather than taking responsibility and assisting in the immediate aftermath.
The owners had previously come under investigation over allegations concerning the building's construction and use. According to the FIR, police had alleged that additional floors were constructed despite concerns about the old foundation's ability to bear the additional load.
Contractor and PG operators also under probe
The police report said contractor Sanoj engaged two unqualified labourers for the repair and structural modification work. It alleged that Sanoj, described in the report as an unprofessional and unqualified rajmistri, failed to take adequate safety precautions.
Neither Sanoj nor the building owners, police said, sought the opinion of a qualified architect or structural expert before undertaking the work.
The investigation also examined the role of PG operators Shubham Tyagi and Sudhanshu Lovenish Kumar. Police alleged that they rented the premises without adequately verifying the building's structural safety and design.
According to the status report, they failed to put sufficient safety measures in place for PG residents despite construction, alteration and structural work being carried out. They also allegedly failed to warn or guide residents about potential dangers arising from the ongoing work.
Earlier investigation into the PG operation found that Lovenish and Tyagi had leased four floors of the building in August 2025 for ₹1.05 lakh a month. Police also suspected that the operators ran several other PG facilities in the Satya Niketan area.
A Delhi court subsequently rejected Shubham Tyagi's anticipatory bail plea following the deaths. An injured student has also emerged as a key witness in the police investigation into the role of the PG operators.
High court seeks answers from authorities
The police report was submitted in response to a petition filed by Aniket Kumar Gupta seeking a fair and comprehensive investigation into the collapse. The petition sought examination of the roles of the owner, contractor, builder, architect, structural engineer and workers.
On September 7, the Delhi High Court had directed the Delhi Police, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi University to respond to the petition. It also directed the MCD to conduct an inquiry at the highest executive level into the collapse.
The court had described the incident as unfortunate and observed that it could have been avoided had the authorities been alive to the statutory duties cast upon them.
The tragedy has also prompted wider scrutiny of unauthorised buildings and PG accommodations in Delhi. The MCD had ordered that illegal structures above four floors be sealed immediately and said officials found guilty of lapses could face dismissal.
The Supreme Court has separately indicated that its scrutiny of illegal structures could extend to PG accommodations following the Satya Niketan collapse.
FIR names owner, invokes BNS provisions
Delhi Police registered an FIR against Hariram Gupta and unidentified others at South Campus police station under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, concerning culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Section 290 concerning negligent conduct in pulling down, repairing or constructing buildings, and Section 125 concerning acts endangering the life or personal safety of others.
Police arrested Hariram Gupta, 81, a Gurugram resident, in connection with the case. His wife Urmila and son Mahesh were also arrested as the investigation widened.
Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta ordered a magisterial inquiry into the collapse.
The police investigation is continuing as authorities examine the responsibility of the property owners, construction workers, contractors and PG operators, alongside the regulatory and structural issues surrounding the building.