The alternative is unimaginable:‘the building was not demolished because of a stay granted by the Court. The building collapsed. People died. Therefore, people died because the Court granted a stay.’ This is the conclusion devoutly to be avoided. A built structure is, in many ways, like the human body. Both require routine care and maintenance, and early intervention when serious problems are detected. Without this, both fail. To say then, as Mr. Murthy says today, ‘that the building can be repaired’ is very like saying a life can be artifcially prolonged for a little while. Whether or not to keep a life going may pose an ethical, legal or moral dilemma. A building presents no such challenge. On the contrary, it is the lives in the building that are our paramount, primary, and, perhaps, only concern. It is for this reason that we insist that unless there is a prima facie fnding there cannot be an order of injunction in such matters; and in no case can such an injunction be rendered weak-kneed by tacking onto it a wholly unenforceable and redundant ‘undertaking’. That undertaking, as we said elsewhere, is useless as soon as the undertaker meets his maker. There can also be no generalized order of status quo without knowing what that status quo is, because in matters such as these, that would inevitably involve an injunction against the annual monsoons. We have also noticed, in more than one case, that while these status quo orders were pending — and for precisely this reason, i.e. weathering — some portions of such judicially protected structures (some on busy roads near stations) actually collapsed.”
