On June 20, 2026, at least seven devotees were killed, and around 30 others were injured when the roof of an under-construction Hanuman temple collapsed during a religious programme at Yashwadi in Maharashtra’s Parbhani district. The initial report did not establish why the roof failed, and it would be irresponsible to blame the concrete, design, weather, contractor, or organisers before a technical investigation is completed. However, one question does not require an engineering inquiry: why was a public gathering permitted inside or beneath an incomplete structure? A construction site is an active industrial workplace. Its slabs may still depend on temporary supports, its concrete may not have reached full strength, its load paths may be changing, and its safety systems may not be complete. It should never be treated as a finished public venue simply because the walls and roof appear complete.
The Parbhani tragedy is not an isolated event. Across India, workers, residents, commuters, worshippers, schoolchildren, and bystanders have repeatedly died beneath structures that were under construction, illegally occupied, recently repaired, inadequately maintained, or poorly built. These disasters are often described as unexpected accidents, but many follow familiar patterns: inadequate structural design, unauthorized changes, weak foundations, poor-quality materials, unsafe temporary supports, missing barricades, premature occupancy, overcrowding, weak inspections, and confusion over who was responsible for stopping dangerous work. The incidents discussed below are verified examples, but they are not an exhaustive list. Many smaller construction deaths receive only local coverage, while others are recorded under unrelated categories such as falls, electrocution, machinery accidents, or accidental deaths.
How Many People Are Dying?
India does not publish a single, regularly updated national figure that covers only deaths caused by under-construction buildings and construction-site structural failures. The official category called “collapse of structures” is much broader. It includes the collapse of residential and commercial buildings, bridges, dams, and other structures, whether they were under construction, occupied, abandoned, or damaged by another event. A figure cited in the Rajya Sabha from National Crime Records Bureau data stated that 8,756 people died because of structural collapses between 2018 and 2022. That is nearly five deaths every day, but it should not be presented as an under-construction-site total because the category includes many other kinds of structural failure.
At the same time, the structural-collapse figure does not capture the full extent of the danger faced by construction workers. Workers also die after falling from unprotected floors, being buried in excavation collapses, being struck by cranes or material, being electrocuted, or being crushed by scaffolding and machinery. A 2016 academic study, using data and extrapolations primarily from the 2008–2012 period, estimated that India could be experiencing at least 11,614 construction fatalities annually. That was a research estimate rather than an official count, and it should not be treated as a current confirmed number. Nevertheless, the enormous discrepancy between reported incidents and academic estimates reveals a serious problem: India cannot effectively prevent construction deaths, nor can it even consistently count them.
Moulivakkam: A Building That Could Not Carry Its Own Weight
One of India’s deadliest under-construction building disasters occurred at Moulivakkam in Chennai on June 28, 2014. An eleven-storey residential block collapsed, killing 61 people and injuring 27. Many of the victims were construction workers living or resting near the site. Court records later summarised expert findings that were far more disturbing than a vague allegation of “poor construction.” The structural design of the reinforced-concrete columns was described as grossly deficient, the foundation was inadequate for the building and soil conditions, reinforcement detailing was insufficient, and construction materials had not been properly tested. The chargesheet also alleged that columns shown in the approved basement plan had been removed to create more parking space.
The expert findings indicated that the building could not withstand its own dead weight before normal occupancy loads were added. This is an important lesson because structural disasters are often blamed on one final trigger, such as rain, wind, or vibration. A trigger may initiate the collapse, but the underlying vulnerability can be created months earlier by defective calculations, unapproved design changes, poor reinforcement, incorrect concrete, insufficient curing, or foundations that were never suitable for the soil. The weather does not design a weak building; it frequently exposes one.
Thane: Families Living in a Building That Was Still Being Built
On April 4, 2013, a seven-storey building collapsed in the Shil Phata area of Thane, killing 74 people, including 18 children. The structure had been built without authorization, and 28 families were reportedly already living inside, even though construction was ongoing and the building lacked an occupancy permit. The disaster demonstrated how illegal construction and premature occupation can combine to produce catastrophic consequences. A building may have walls, windows, electricity, and residents while still lacking a safely completed structural system, approved services, fire access, or certification that it is suitable for occupation.
Allowing people to occupy unfinished buildings is especially dangerous because construction loads and residential loads are different. Building materials may be stacked on floors, temporary walls may be altered, openings may remain unprotected, and columns or foundations may still be carrying loads that were not anticipated at that stage. Occupants may also block access for inspection or unknowingly interfere with temporary supports. An occupancy certificate should therefore not be treated as optional paperwork. It should represent the final outcome of a documented chain of design checks, material tests, inspections, and safety approvals.
Flyovers and Bridges: Construction Above a Moving Public
The same failures appear in public infrastructure. On March 31, 2016, part of the under-construction Vivekananda Road flyover collapsed in Kolkata, killing 26 people. A government-sanctioned RITES investigation reportedly found that the design and construction were carried out without sufficient care or supervision, while an IIT Kharagpur assessment identified problems with the design and materials. Because the work was being performed above a crowded urban road, the victims included people with no connection to the project. They were simply travelling or working beneath it.
On May 15, 2018, part of an under-construction flyover near Varanasi Cantonment railway station fell onto vehicles and people below. The final report from the Ministry of Home Affairs’ National Emergency Response Centre recorded 15 deaths and 11 injuries, although some early media reports carried a higher toll. Police had reportedly raised concerns before the collapse about inadequate barricading and the absence of a proper service lane, yet traffic continued beneath the construction. This is a recurring failure in infrastructure projects: authorities attempt to keep roads fully operational while heavy concrete segments, girders, cranes, or temporary supports are positioned overhead. Convenience is prioritized until the structure falls, after which the road is closed immediately—the same closure that could have protected people beforehand.
In August 2023, a construction platform and gantry at a railway bridge project in Sairang, Mizoram, collapsed, killing at least 26 workers and injuring two. This case illustrates the danger of “temporary works,” a term that covers formwork, scaffolding, shoring, launching gantries, excavation supports, and other systems required during the construction of the permanent structure. Temporary does not mean unimportant. These systems often carry enormous loads, yet they may receive less design review and inspection than the final bridge or building. A permanent structure designed correctly can still become the site of a mass-fatality accident if the equipment or temporary support used to build it fails.
Bengaluru: Nine Workers Lost Inside an Unfinished Building
In October 2024, a six-storey under-construction building collapsed in Babusapalya, Bengaluru. Rescue teams eventually recovered nine construction workers who had died, while 14 people were rescued. The tragedy again exposed the extreme vulnerability of workers who spend their days and, in some cases, their nights inside incomplete structures. Unlike future owners, construction workers are present during the most unstable phases: excavation, foundation work, slab casting, formwork removal, structural alteration, and material lifting.
The people most exposed to construction danger often have the least power to stop it. A migrant labourer may recognise that scaffolding is unstable or that a slab is sagging, but may fear losing a day’s wages for refusing to continue. Workers may not know the engineer responsible for the structure, may receive no formal safety briefing, and may have no independent channel for reporting danger. Safety, therefore, cannot depend on individual courage. Every worker must have a protected right to stop work when an immediate hazard is observed, without losing wages or employment.
Muradnagar: A Newly Built Shelter That Collapsed During Rain
On January 3, 2021, the roof of a shelter at a cremation ground in Muradnagar, Uttar Pradesh, collapsed while people attending a funeral had gathered beneath it to escape the rain. The reported death toll rose to 25. The corridor had been constructed relatively recently, and criminal proceedings and investigations followed amid allegations of substandard work and irregularities. Rain was present when the structure collapsed, but a properly designed and constructed public shelter must be capable of carrying its expected dead load, live load, drainage load, and reasonable weather exposure.
Rain is regularly presented as the cause of wall, roof, and excavation collapses. In reality, rain is often a stress test for whether the structure was designed to survive. Water can increase soil pressure, wash material away from shallow foundations, add weight to roofs, enter cracks, corrode reinforcement, weaken unprotected masonry, and destabilize excavations. These risks are well known. A monsoon is not an unforeseeable event in India, and weather cannot become a permanent excuse for failing to provide drainage, waterproofing, bracing, proper foundations, and post-rain inspections.
Morbi and Jhalawar: Repair and Inspection Can Also Fail
On October 30, 2022, a 143-year-old suspension bridge in Morbi, Gujarat, collapsed shortly after it had been repaired and reopened, killing at least 135 people. Morbi was not an under-construction building accident, but it belongs in the same discussion because repair work and reopening decisions are part of construction safety. A repaired public structure should not reopen merely because the work appears finished. Its load-carrying components, connections, alterations, testing, permitted capacity, crowd control, and final certification must all be independently verified.
In July 2025, the roof of a government middle school in Piplod village in Rajasthan’s Jhalawar district collapsed, killing seven children and injuring at least 21. The initial report said the cause was still unclear and that the school had not appeared on a recently requested list of dilapidated buildings. That fact raises another difficult question: are inspections capable of identifying actual structural danger, or do they merely confirm that a building has no obvious cracks visible during a brief visit? Schools, hospitals, temples, community halls, bridges, and other heavily used public buildings need systematic structural assessments based on age, design, alterations, material deterioration, water damage, foundation movement, and load, not only visual appearance.
Indore: A Crowd Standing Above a Hidden Stepwell
In March 2023, a concrete slab covering a stepwell inside the Beleshwar Mahadev temple complex in Indore collapsed during Ram Navami celebrations. Thirty-six people died, and 16 were injured. Officials said the slab gave way under the crowd and additional load, sending people into the approximately 60-foot-deep stepwell below. Many of the deaths may have resulted from drowning after victims fell into the water.
The Indore disaster demonstrates that safety cannot be judged by appearance. A covered well may look like an ordinary floor, while its structural capacity, reinforcement, supports, age, and condition remain invisible. Public authorities and property managers need accurate drawings and records showing concealed wells, tanks, basements, voids, and altered structural elements. When those records do not exist, the area should be investigated and load-tested before it is used for large gatherings. Crowd management is not only about controlling entrances and exits; it must also confirm that the surface beneath the crowd can safely carry the expected load.
Chintels Paradiso: Construction Failure After People Move In
Unsafe construction does not always collapse before completion. In February 2022, part of a sixth-floor apartment in Tower D of the Chintels Paradiso residential complex in Gurugram collapsed through the floors below, killing two women. Subsequent structural audits led authorities to declare multiple towers unfit for habitation. An IIT Delhi report on another tower found high chloride content in the concrete and warned that corrosion of the reinforcement could reduce structural capacity without adequate warning. The investigating committee said that the construction agency and developer had failed to ensure quality construction.
This case is important because completed buildings can conceal defects for years. Chlorides in concrete can accelerate corrosion of reinforcing steel. As steel corrodes, it expands, cracks the surrounding concrete, weakens the bond between the concrete and the reinforcement, and progressively reduces the structural capacity. Superficial repairs may hide visible damage without addressing the underlying deterioration. Residents, therefore, need access to structural drawings, test reports, repair history, and periodic audit results rather than being expected to trust appearance or marketing claims.
Why Do These Incidents Keep Happening?
The first reason is that an incomplete structure changes from day to day. A finished building has an intended load path through which weight moves from slabs to beams, columns, foundations, and soil. During construction, that load path may depend on temporary props, partially cured concrete, incomplete bracing, or structural elements that have not yet been connected. Removing supports too early, loading a young slab with bricks or machinery, or constructing upper floors before lower floors have reached sufficient strength can lead to progressive failure. Construction sequencing is therefore part of engineering, not merely a scheduling decision.
The second reason is that temporary works are frequently treated as the contractor’s informal responsibility rather than as engineered structures. Formwork, scaffolding, excavation shoring, retaining systems, and launching equipment should include calculations, drawings, safe load limits, inspection records, and named responsible engineers. A worker should not be expected to assemble a support system from experience and available material while carrying loads weighing several tonnes. Every significant temporary structure should be designed and checked with the same seriousness applied to permanent construction.
The third reason is the gap between an approved drawing and what is actually built. Columns may be moved to create parking, reinforcement may be reduced, floors may be added, wall openings may be enlarged, or lower-cost materials may be used in place of those specified. Each change can alter how the building carries weight. Even a seemingly small modification may concentrate forces in a column or foundation that was not designed for them. No structural alteration should be permitted without revised calculations, updated drawings, and approval from a qualified structural engineer independent of commercial pressure from the developer or contractor.
The fourth reason is weak quality control. Concrete quality depends on the proportions of cement, water, aggregate, and additives; correct mixing and placement; vibration to remove air pockets; adequate cover over reinforcement; and proper curing. Testing a few cubes is useful only when the samples genuinely represent the concrete poured into the structure, and the results are acted upon. Steel certificates, concrete test results, soil reports, reinforcement inspection reports, curing records, and photographs should form a traceable construction record. A signature on a checklist is not proof that the work below the concrete was inspected correctly.
The fifth reason is premature access. People are allowed to live in unfinished buildings, traffic is allowed beneath active bridge construction, religious events are held under incomplete roofs, and workers sleep below recently cast slabs. The economic or social pressure to use the space is understandable, but it does not change the laws of engineering. Until a structure has been independently declared safe for its intended use, the public must remain outside it.
Finally, responsibility is divided among developers, contractors, subcontractors, structural engineers, architects, municipal officials, project-management consultants, and property owners. After a collapse, each party may claim that the other party controlled the defective work. This fragmentation makes prevention difficult and accountability slow. Every project needs a clearly identified person legally responsible for structural safety at each stage, together with an independent authority empowered to stop the work.
What Must Be Done?
The first requirement should be an absolute prohibition on public gatherings, occupancy, or normal business operations inside active construction zones. No temple programme, wedding, political event, school activity, residential occupation, or public parking should be permitted under an incomplete slab or beside an unsupported wall. Infrastructure agencies must also close or physically protect roads beneath high-risk lifting, launching, or concrete work. Barricades should be designed to withstand impact and prevent entry, not consist of a ribbon that pedestrians can step over.
The second requirement is an independent structural review at mandatory “hold points.” Construction should not proceed beyond foundation work until the soil report and foundation design are verified. Concrete should not be poured until reinforcement, formwork, dimensions, and embedded items are inspected. Supports should not be removed until strength results and the engineer’s approval are recorded. The next floor should not be loaded until the preceding structure has achieved the required strength. High-rise buildings, bridges, public buildings, and unusual structures should receive independent peer review by engineers who are not employed by the main contractor.
The third requirement is a documented temporary-works plan. Formwork, scaffolding, shoring, excavation supports, tower cranes, gantries, and material platforms must have approved designs and stated load limits. They must be inspected after alteration, heavy rain, high winds, impact, or prolonged use. Excavations should have engineered slopes or shoring, safe access, water-removal systems, and daily inspections. No worker should enter an unsupported deep excavation or work beneath a suspended load.
The fourth requirement is transparent quality evidence. Major sites should maintain digital records containing approved drawings, revisions, concrete test results, reinforcement certificates, geotechnical reports, inspection photographs, safety violations, and corrective actions. A public QR code displayed at the site could show the building permit, responsible developer, structural engineer, contractor, last inspection date, current permitted stage, and whether occupancy is authorized. Transparency would make it harder to add unauthorized floors or continue work after a stop order.
The fifth requirement is a formal monsoon and severe-weather protocol. Before heavy rain, sites should inspect retaining walls, excavations, drainage, foundations, scaffolding, loose material, and temporary electrical systems. After heavy rain or strong winds, affected work should remain stopped until the temporary and permanent structures are re-inspected. Weather should trigger additional safety controls rather than become the explanation offered after people have died.
The sixth requirement is meaningful worker protection. Guardrails, safety nets, properly anchored lifelines, helmets, harnesses, safe ladders, illuminated access routes, lifting plans, and trained equipment operators must be treated as basic production costs. Workers should receive safety instruction in a language they understand and have a confidential channel to report unsafe work. A worker who stops work because of an immediate danger should be legally protected from dismissal and loss of wages.
The seventh requirement is stronger accountability. Penalties should not end with a small fine that can be absorbed as a project cost. Proven serious violations should result in suspension, debarment from public contracts, professional disciplinary action, personal liability for responsible decision-makers, and compensation funded by mandatory project insurance. Investigations should publish their technical findings so that engineers, authorities, and the public can learn what failed. Arrests may satisfy an immediate demand for action, but without a public engineering report, the same technical mistake can be repeated elsewhere.
India already possesses engineering knowledge, building standards, qualified professionals, and institutions capable of safe construction. The central failure is not a lack of knowledge; it is the inconsistent application, verification, and enforcement of that knowledge. A building should not be considered successful because it was completed quickly, cheaply, or inaugurated on schedule. It is successful only when workers return home safely, residents can trust it, and the public can use it without wondering whether the next rainstorm, crowd, or minor alteration will bring it down.
Construction deaths are not an unavoidable price of development. Concrete, steel, soil, and gravity do not respond to political promises, religious importance, project deadlines, or public relations campaigns. They respond to design, material strength, workmanship, load, time, and maintenance. When those fundamentals are respected, structures remain standing. When they are ignored, the final collapse may appear sudden—but the conditions that caused it were often created long before the first crack became visible.
Comments (1)