The tragic collapse of a multi-storeyed building in Delhi’s Satyaniketan area, reportedly killing five people, should not be treated merely as another urban accident that will disappear from public memory after a few days of political blame-game. It must instead become a serious wake-up call for governments, civic authorities and educational institutions across the country.
What makes the tragedy particularly disturbing is that Satyaniketan has reportedly witnessed several building-related incidents in recent months. If buildings in a locality are repeatedly found unsafe, the issue is no longer about an isolated structural failure. It points towards a systemic failure of enforcement, inspection, planning and accountability.
And Delhi is certainly not alone.
The mushrooming of Junior Colleges in all cities across the country is real.
In Hyderabad, the rapid expansion of private educational institutions, coaching centres and paying-guest (PG) accommodations has created a parallel ecosystem around students. Youngsters arriving from distant towns and villages in pursuit of higher education or competitive examinations often have little choice but to live in cramped, expensive and sometimes dangerously constructed accommodation close to their institutions.
For example, approximately 600 to 750 registered junior colleges operate across the greater GHMC metropolitan area, based on TSBIE district data that includes the GHMC area and the Ranga Reddy and Medchal-Malkajigiri Districts. Hyderabad District (Fully within GHMC) accounts for roughly 200 to 250 junior colleges, comprising Government Junior Colleges (GJCs), private aided, and a vast network of private unaided/corporate colleges (like Narayana and Sri Chaitanya).
Add to them a large number of unorganized as small-scale micro-tuition points as institutes without civic registry. Based on mapped commercial data, market analysis reports, and corporate infrastructure audits, there are approximately 800 to 1,000+ structured, prominent coaching centers actively operating within the GHMC limits. Data tracking commercial setups identifies 813 established coaching institutions running as formal corporate branches or registered standalone entities within the city limits.
The Supreme Court is currently considering issuing pan-India guidelines and time-bound structural safety audits for PG accommodations and private hostels operating near college campuses. But the Supreme Court too must take a holistic view and give guidelines covering all aspects for a futuristic educational system.
Never too late for the Central and State Governments to take a holistic view of the current absurd corporate education system and formulate policies specifying guidelines – campus acreage, buildings, classroom infrastructure, professors and teachers with appropriate qualifications, high-tech teaching infrastructure, hostels, and playgrounds – for appropriate recognition.
Student intake should be linked, wherever feasible, to the institution’s capacity to provide or facilitate not only safe accommodation, but also the entire range of infrastructure.
The same principle must apply to coaching centres preparing youngsters for competitive examinations. These institutions attract students from across the country, many of them barely out of school and living away from their families for the first time. Their safety cannot be left entirely to the private rental market.
Our older universities, including institutions such as Osmania University and Andhra University, were historically conceived with substantial campuses, hostels, sporting facilities and open spaces. Over the decades, the pressure on institutional land and infrastructure has increased enormously. The lesson is obvious: educational planning cannot be separated from the physical well-being of students.
The Delhi administration’s reported efforts to identify and remove dangerously unsafe structures are welcome. But demolition after a tragedy is not governance; prevention is. Every unsafe building should be identified before lives are lost, and every official or institution found responsible for knowingly permitting hazardous occupation should face appropriate action after due process.
I would therefore urge both the Centre and the States to consider a national framework for student accommodation and safety, with mandatory structural audits, fire-safety certification, occupancy limits, periodic inspections and transparent public records of compliance. Special attention must be given to coaching hubs and cities that attract exceptionally large student populations.
India’s young people are not merely consumers of education. They are the country’s future workforce, innovators, professionals, entrepreneurs and soldiers. If we can invest billions in infrastructure and technology for the future, surely we can ensure that a young student does not have to risk his or her life simply to pursue an education.
The Delhi tragedy should therefore not end with compensation, demolition drives or political accusations. It should compel both the Centre and the States to ask a fundamental question: Are we doing enough to ensure that the young people we call the future of Bharat are safe today?
My suggestions to the governments and educational institutions are loud and clear.
The government must consider framing a mandatory land and infrastructure policy for educational institutions. Large educational institutions should ideally have a minimum of five acres of land, while high schools should have at least two to three acres, depending on their student strength and location. This would ensure that adequate classrooms, laboratories, playgrounds, fire-safety systems, emergency access, sanitation, parking and other essential infrastructure can be properly accommodated before an institution is granted or renewed recognition.
Civic authorities and other regulatory agencies must also stop treating inspections as a mere formality. They should conduct frequent, independent safety and infrastructure audits of educational institutions and certify compliance with clearly laid-down norms. Officials found accepting bribes, deliberately overlooking violations or facilitating the continuation of unsafe institutions must face prosecution. At the same time, institutions that repeatedly violate safety norms must face strict penalties, including suspension or cancellation of recognition.
Perhaps the best examples can be found in several institutions established before Independence, particularly those founded by Christian missionaries, which often possess spacious campuses and the infrastructure necessary to accommodate generations of students safely. How did an independent Bharat, which inherited such institutions, reach a stage where even legitimate government-school lands are allegedly being encroached upon, diverted or disposed of, sometimes with the connivance of local vested interests and politicians—while private institutions are simultaneously being forced to operate and expand within increasingly congested spaces?
This contradiction demands serious examination.
Urban land may be scarce, but the safety of children cannot be negotiated in the name of land scarcity, commercial interests or administrative convenience. Governments must plan educational infrastructure decades ahead rather than merely react after a disaster.
The answer must not be postponed until the next building collapses.
