The Supreme Court today (21.09.2026) issued notice to the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment and Haryana government officials on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an independent inquiry into the March 9 construction-site collapse in Gurugram that killed seven workers. The petition also seeks nationwide safety standards for high-risk construction work and a national record of construction fatalities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohanna issued notice to the respondents on the PIL filed by the National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code should prescribe specific safety standards for construction workers. He said the petitioner had suggested guidelines in line with the standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant suggested the possibility of requiring builders to create a dedicated corpus for construction workers as a condition for obtaining a licence.

"There's a separate statute governing licenses. If it creates statutory obligations, then it would be easier to implement. Builders are required to deposit different funds. Why not have corpus for construction workers? That can be a pre-condition for grant of license," the CJI observed.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioner to place before the Court a comparative chart identifying the gaps, if any, in the new rules vis-à-vis the safety requirements already contained in existing rules.

Bhushan agreed to provide the comparative chart.

As per the petition, the collapse occurred on March 9, 2026 at the Signature Global City of Colours project at Sidhrawali, Gurugram. A retaining wall allegedly collapsed near an under-construction Sewage Treatment Plant. The excavation is alleged to have been approximately 30-40 feet deep, and workers were buried under soil and debris. Seven workers reportedly lost their lives and several others sustained injuries, which the petition describes as “not a minor site accident but a mass-fatality workplace accident involving high-risk excavation activity in a large construction project.”

An FIR was subsequently registered at the Police Station, Bilaspur, Gurugram under Sections 105 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petition, however, calls for a broader technical and statutory inquiry into the incident, examining excavation design, soil, and stability assessment, shoring arrangements, engineering approvals, risk assessments, inspection records, safety audits, and supervision.

“The incident raises issues not merely of individual negligence but of enforcement of occupational safety law, accountability throughout the construction and management hierarchy, protection of migrant and contract workers, and the absence of an effective national system for recording and preventing construction fatalities,” the petition states.

Apart from the Ministry of Labour and Employment and Employment and Haryana government, Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Signature Global (India) Limited (the developer), Balajee Infratech and Construction Private Limited (the contractor), and one Deendayal Sharma (the sub-contractor) have also been made respondents in the petition.

The petition says that the failures are not confined to Haryana. Additionally, it lists incidents of Greater Noida, Gurugram Sector 27, Indore, and Jaipur. It further relies on Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audits of the building workers' welfare regime in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, and Tamil Nadu. It calls the recurrence of these audits as demonstrating institutional and nationwide problems rather than peculiar to one accident or one state. It also flags under-reporting of such incidents, citing a 2016 study, which estimated a minimum of 11,614 fatal construction accidents a year.

The petition frames several questions for the bench, including laying down interim minimum safeguards for high-risk construction work, on principle in Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, whether Section 18(1) of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code) imposes a duty enforceable by a writ of mandamus, whether a principal employer or developer is relieved of duties imposed under Section 6 of the OSH Code by engaging a contractor or sub-contractor, whether a claim to death or disability benefit can be rejected solely because the worker was not registered with the Welfare Board.

The petitioner, thus, seeks directions for complete, independent and time-bound investigation and inquiry into the incident, covering the roles of the developer, directors and management, project and safety personnel, the contractor and sub-contractor, and applicability of Sections 6 and 103 of the OSH Code. It also seeks directions to the labour, compensation and welfare authorities to identify and verify every deceased and injured worker and disburse compensation, medical and rehabilitation assistance. It also seeks directions to the Union and all States and Union Territories to set up a uniform national mechanism for recording and periodically publishing construction fatalities and serious injuries, their causes, inspections, prosecutions, compensation and welfare benefits, and for periodic compliance and monitoring orders.

Further, it clarifies that the relief sought is both remedial and preventive, and does not seek determination of criminal guilt.

The petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record Abiha Zaidi.

Case : National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour v Union of India & Ors (Diary No. 52458/2026)