Fire Safety PIL: Supreme Court Pulls Up Lawyer Over Party-In-Person Appearance, Says “Be Responsible”

A sharp exchange took place before the bench of Justcies PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe during the hearing involving lawyer Narender Kumar Goswami, who was appearing in person. The Bench questioned him about whether he was a lawyer and why he was not bringing his camera down to show his collar and advocate’s bands.

The Court observed that the lawyer appeared to be deliberately avoiding showing the bands while appearing as a party-in-person. The Bench cautioned him against such conduct and said, “Don’t play these games, sir. You are appearing as a party-in-person. Don’t show your bands.”

The lawyer attempted to explain his position and also sought to mention another matter. The Bench, however, expressed its displeasure, observing that while the Court was sympathetic towards genuine litigants appearing in person, the same consideration could not extend to a lawyer who was allegedly attempting to conceal his professional status.

The Court observed, “I am extremely sorry. I am very, very sympathetic to party in person because they don’t know, and you are playing games by not showing that you are wearing bands and then sitting there.”

The Bench also reminded the lawyer of the standards expected from members of the legal profession and stressed that professional conduct before the Court was a serious matter.

“Responsible lawyer, don’t be….be responsible in your conduct. That is a serious reflection on you, the way you conduct your proceedings,” the Court observed.

The proceedings arose from a PIL seeking directions for a comprehensive national fire safety framework for high-risk public premises.

During the hearing, Goswami ultimately submitted that he was not pressing the wider relief at that stage and would confine the present proceedings.

The Supreme Court thereafter dismissed the petition.

The plea has been filed in the backdrop of recent 2026 incidents in Delhi and Lucknow, coming after the 2019 Surat coaching-centre fire and the 2024 Delhi coaching-centre basement tragedy.

On June 3, 2026, a fire at a Delhi Malviya Nagar guest-house resulted in at least 21 deaths. Public reports state that a crackdown was ordered against guest houses and other establishments violating fire-safety norms and building by-laws. Also just a few days back on June 22, 2026, a fire at a commercial building housing a coaching/training centre in Lucknow's Aliganj area resulted in at least 15 deaths, mostly students/young persons, and injuries to others.

As per the PIL these incidents establish that students continue to be placed in hazardous spaces under the very nose of licensing and municipal authorities. A student seeking education should not have to choose between examination failure and death by smoke inhalation, the plea states.

"Despite the existence of standards, the pattern of fatalities shows that compliance is episodic. The country has standards on paper, but ashes on the ground. The law exists; enforcement is missing. Certificates exist; public verification is absent. Inspections occur; accountability evaporates," the plea argues.

It has been further argued that one of the gravest reasons for the recurring fire tragedies in the country is the absence of a uniform enforceable national minimum fire and life-safety framework for high-risk public occupancy premises.

"Fire services, building permissions, occupancy certificates, trade licences and local safety enforcement are presently governed by a fragmented combination of State Acts, Rules, municipal bye-laws, executive notifications, departmental circulars and local licensing conditions. The consequence is that the safety of citizens depends upon uneven State-wise enforcement, local discretion, administrative will and, in many cases, post-tragedy action rather than pre-tragedy prevention," court has been told.

Case Title: Narender Kumar Goswami v. Union of India & Anr.