Authorities across India’s Uttar Pradesh state sealed scores of coaching centres and other establishments during a safety enforcement campaign launched after a fire at a Lucknow animation and coaching centre killed 15 people, most of them students.
The inspections focused on coaching businesses operating in unauthorized buildings or without required safety measures and permits, according to Deccan Herald. Officials said hundreds of institutions were checked. Reports cited by the newspaper said more than 100 coaching centres had been sealed in different parts of the state, including a centre associated with educator Khan Sir.
The reported district figures showed the drive extending well beyond Lucknow. Authorities sealed 59 coaching centres in Ghaziabad, six in Hapur, 12 in Raebareli, 46 in Shamli, seven in Ayodhya, 40 in Baghpat and 28 in Bijnor. Those numbers, taken together, exceed the broader description of more than 100 closures, indicating that the totals may reflect reports compiled at different points or categories within a continuing campaign.
Some libraries, nursing homes and hotels were also closed over inadequate safety standards. In Prayagraj, the Khan Sir centre was sealed after authorities found that it occupied a building permitted for commercial use rather than community utility, the report said. Elsewhere, inspectors found coaching operations in basements that allegedly lacked fire-safety precautions and equipment. Officials said the campaign would continue for several days.
The enforcement followed the June 22 fire in Lucknow’s Aliganj area. The affected building housed an animation and coaching centre and had authorization for residential, not commercial, use, according to the report. It lacked both an emergency exit and firefighting equipment. Those reported conditions became a central concern as authorities examined whether similar institutions elsewhere were operating from unsuitable premises.
The closures are administrative actions based on alleged compliance failures; they do not by themselves establish criminal responsibility for the Lucknow deaths or prove that every sealed site presented the same level of danger. The supplied source did not say how long the closures would last, what operators would need to do to reopen, or whether they had avenues to challenge the orders.
The campaign nevertheless represented a statewide response to a specific fatal event, shifting attention from the Lucknow site to building permissions and emergency preparedness across a wider education sector. Final totals and the outcome of each inspection remained unsettled while checks continued. The report also did not indicate how many inspected sites passed their checks or whether the institutions affected were occupied when sealed. Those figures would be needed to measure the campaign beyond its announced closure totals and to assess compliance across the sector.
