The Court sought this data to examine the implementation of the Standing Fire Advisory Council guidelines regarding the establishment of fire stations.

The Court was hearing a petition wherein the petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that there is a gross violation of policy, thereby putting the general public at risk due to the non-implementation of the firefighting policy. The respondents, represented by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, referred to the parameters laid down by the Standing Fire Advisory Council, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, as set out in their reply filed before the Court.

The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Yash Paul Bourney before whom the petitioner submitted,

“there is a gross violation of policy, thereby putting the general public at risk due to the non-implementation of the firefighting policy.”

The petitioner approached the Court alleging a gross violation of the firefighting policy and non-implementation of the same, which he contended was putting the general public at risk. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, drew the attention of the Court to paragraph 7 of her reply, which set out the guidelines laid down by the Standing Fire Advisory Council, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

As per the reply, the criteria for the establishment of Fire Fighting Stations include Population, Topography, Risk Factor, and Response Time based on distance from the nearest fire stations.

The policy provides that for a population of 50,000, one 'D' category Fire Station has to be provided, and in urban areas, one Fire Station is recommended per 4 square miles. The risk factor is divided into three zones based on risk hazard analysis, namely, High Risk Areas ('A' Zone), Medium Risk Areas ('B' Zone), and Low Risk Areas ('C' Zone), with another 'D' zone for least or no risk zones, mainly open or rural areas.

The policy further suggests that the first fire tender should reach the risk category of Class A, B, and C in 3 to 5 minutes and 20 minutes in D category. It also provides for one fire station per 10 sq. km. area in urban areas and 50 sq. kms in rural areas, with a maximum response time of 5 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas.

The reply also stated that approximately Rs. 130.00 lacs is needed for the establishment of a fire station with recurring and non-recurring expenditure, including the cost of land, construction, and manpower.

The Court observed that in view of the submissions advanced, it was necessary to pose a question to the learned Senior Additional Advocate General as to the number of fire stations or firefighting establishments falling under Categories A, B, C, and D, respectively, in the Union Territory, in accordance with the policy. The Court formulated the proposition into specific questions.

The Court enquired,

“How many areas in the UT fall within each of the four risk categories, namely, high-risk (A), medium-risk (B), low-risk (C) and rural/low-risk (D)? The authorities shall furnish the exact number of areas falling under each category.”

The Court further queried,

“How many fire stations or firefighting establishments are required to be functional in each of the aforesaid categories, in accordance with the policy and the prescribed norms?” The Court also sought to know out of the fire stations required to be functional under the policy, how many were presently functional in each category.

The Court directed the Senior Additional Advocate General to furnish a consolidated category-wise chart, supported by an affidavit.

The matter was directed to be listed on November 17th 2026 for further consideration.