“The tragedy was not merely an unfortunate accident. The criminal investigation has alleged serious violations relating to licensing, fire safety and the operation of the establishment. The chargesheet includes allegations involving culpable homicide not amounting to murder, negligent conduct involving fire and combustible matter, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy. These remain allegations to be established through the legal process.
The Enforcement Directorate has separately stated that its investigation found the establishment operating without mandatory approvals, including a Fire NOC, and alleged that forged documents were used to obtain regulatory approvals. It also said the establishment generated approximately ₹29.78 crore in revenue during the period it examined.
If these allegations are proved, the issue becomes even more serious. This would not simply be about compensating families after an unforeseen calamity. It would be about consequences flowing from alleged violations of laws designed precisely to prevent people from dying in such circumstances.”
Twenty-five people went to work or went out for an evening in Goa on December 6, 2025. They never returned home. Ten months later, their families are being asked to consider an offer of ₹15 lakh each as ex gratia compensation from the owners of Birch by Romeo Lane.
The Bombay High Court at Goa has sought the response of the families and posted the matter for October 12. The offer is not a final determination of compensation, and the court is yet to decide what amount should ultimately be paid.
But the question that needs to be asked is far bigger than the figure itself.
Can the value of a human life be reduced to ₹15 lakh?
Twenty five lives were lost in one of Goa’s worst recent tragedies. More than 50 people were injured. Twenty of those who died were reportedly employees of the establishment, many of them working in the basement kitchen when the fire broke out. Five were tourists.
These were not numbers. They were sons, daughters, husbands, wives, parents, brothers and sisters. They were people earning, supporting families and planning their futures.
For a family that has lost its sole or major breadwinner, ₹15 lakh can disappear frighteningly quickly. Rent, loans, education, medical expenses and everyday living costs do not stop because a family has received compensation. The lost income of a young worker cannot simply be replaced by a one-time payment.
That is why compensation must not be viewed as a price placed on a life. It is, at best, financial restitution for the consequences of a death that cannot be reversed.
There is another uncomfortable dimension to this case.
The tragedy was not merely an unfortunate accident. The criminal investigation has alleged serious violations relating to licensing, fire safety and the operation of the establishment. The chargesheet includes allegations involving culpable homicide not amounting to murder, negligent conduct involving fire and combustible matter, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy. These remain allegations to be established through the legal process.
The Enforcement Directorate has separately stated that its investigation found the establishment operating without mandatory approvals, including a Fire NOC, and alleged that forged documents were used to obtain regulatory approvals. It also said the establishment generated approximately ₹29.78 crore in revenue during the period it examined.
If these allegations are proved, the issue becomes even more serious. This would not simply be about compensating families after an unforeseen calamity. It would be about consequences flowing from alleged violations of laws designed precisely to prevent people from dying in such circumstances.
The High Court itself had earlier questioned the compromise of public safety in the pursuit of profit. The court had also been examining the larger issue of commercial establishments allegedly operating from illegal structures in Goa.
That larger question cannot be allowed to disappear behind a compensation cheque.
There is also a responsibility on the government. Earlier, the families received ₹5 lakh from the Goa government and ₹2 lakh from the Centre, according to the Advocate General’s submissions before the High Court.
But relief cannot become a substitute for accountability.
Goa cannot create a system where safety violations become a business calculation. If the cost of ignoring fire norms, licensing requirements and public safety is ultimately only a manageable compensation payment, then the deterrent value of the law is weakened.
The families should not have to bargain over the value of their loss.
The court must determine compensation on evidence, taking into account the age of the deceased, income, dependants, future earning capacity and the circumstances surrounding the deaths. The responsibility of every person or authority found legally liable must also be determined independently of the compensation question.
And the government must answer an equally important question: Who allowed a potentially unsafe establishment to operate in the first place?
The Birch tragedy should not end with compensation. It should result in accountability, regulatory reform and a system in which public safety is treated as non-negotiable.
₹15 lakh may be an offer.
It cannot be the measure of a life.
