Authors: Kaustubh Kumar (Batch 2025)  and Amrita Pradhan (Batch 2027), NUSRL, Ranchi.

I. Introduction

A sequence of disastrous boiler explosions in India in 2025 has reeled the industry with the appalling deficiency of the regulatory architecture in the nation. Killing 21 and injuring six, a boiler blast in an illegal factory in Gujarat went off in the month of April. Soon after, 8 factory workers were injured in an identical explosion in Uttar Pradesh. And the list does not just end here, but recently, on June 30, a huge explosion at Siagachi Industries in Telangana claimed the lives of more than 40 people and stands as the deadliest industrial accident in the history of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Though the exact reason behind the blast is not yet known, a few news reports have said that it was a “Boiler Blast”. These repetitive tragedies represent a morbid turnaround of the recent improvement of industrial accidents and require some serious consideration of the legal frameworks that were meant to prevent them.

The Boilers Act, 2025, enacted to supersede the colonial-era Boilers Act, 1923, is designed to adapt to evolving technology, updated safety protocols, and the rapid expansion of India’s industrial sector . However, it seems to have inherited the weaknesses of its predecessor while introducing new vulnerabilities under the banner of ease of doing business. Far from fortifying worker safety, the Act perhaps is facilitating a dangerously lax regulatory culture.

This article is an attempt by the authors to give an insightful analysis of the Boilers Act, 2025, its key provisions, and their potential role in the rising accident trend. The authors propose an in-depth analysis suggesting the applicability of absolute liability to boiler accidents, the redundant relationship with the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code (“OSH Code”), 2020, and broader implications for worker safety and regulatory oversight. The authors contend that the 2025 Act has not provided any protrusive safeguard and suggest that the OSH Code should come to the fore become the primary, effective legal framework of industrial safety in India.

II. Key Provisions of the Boilers Act, 2025

To start with, we must have a look at the main points of the Boilers Act, 2025, which is the act that was tabled under the slogan of modernising the regulation of boilers to match the requirements of the modern industrial environment. Presented as a corrective move to strike the balance between the safety of workers, the slew of structural reforms promoting ease of doing business remains. As the recent run of boiler explosions would indicate, such change is only likely to result in regulatory dilution and not actual improvement. The major alterations added by the 2025 Act being –

A.    Ease of Doing Business and Decriminalization of Offenses

The primary objective behind these modifications is to facilitate ease of doing business, and this has played a pivotal role in changing the punitive environment of Boiler Act. Particularly, it has led to the decriminalization of 3 out of 7 crimes that were previously punishable with imprisonment under the 1923 Act. Regarding relatively small offences like procedural delays in registration or failure to maintain, the law has now provided monetary fines up to the range of INR 5000 to INR 1,00,000 and also stipulated daily fines not exceeding INR 1,000/day in case of continued violation (Sections 27 and 28). Serious violations such as tampering with safety valves get a penalty of an imprisonment of two years or fines of up 1 Lakh or both (Section 29). While this decriminalization aims to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, it raises concerns that fines may be perceived as a mere cost of operation, potentially undermining the incentive for rigorous safety compliance.

B.     State Government Exemptions

Vide the insertion of Section 38 of the Boilers Act, 2025, the State Governments have been given the authority to exempt some areas or types of boilers, like heating boilers, emergency boilers, etc., from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act. Although this measure is intended to provide states the flexibility to adapt boiler regulation to local industrial conditions, it creates potential opportunities for uneven enforcement and safety disparities across the country, and it can also lead to regulatory blind spots, especially in areas where all the exemptions are granted generously.

The horrific boiler explosion in Gujarat in an illegal facility depicts how such exemptions might allow hazardous operations to dodge mandatory safety checks. Here, it is imperative to note that the objective of the ease of doing business will prevail over the safety of workers, leaving the workers with no remedy in the cases of boiler accidents.

C.    Risk-Based Inspections

Amongst the key modifications is also a “risk-based inspection system” that prioritizes “high-risk areas” to optimize safety efforts. Though the Boilers Act, 2025, does not have a specific section for risk-based inspection, but Sections 3(7), 40(2), and 5(8) provide a framework for such approaches through regulations and state prescriptions. The Act’s focus on safety and uniformity, coupled with the board’s regulatory powers, suggests that risk-based inspection is likely implemented at the regulatory level, not within the act itself. The idea behind it is to direct attention towards facilities that are more accident-prone. However, this system will only be effective when the state authorities can easily detect and assess these high-risk sites. Without consistent enforcement, especially in areas with limited resources, serious gaps in oversight are likely to subsist. Moreover, as there is no known data on how the high-risk areas be identified, it might be a possibility that the system would not function of prevention model rather follow a remedy-based approach i.e., the areas where the boilers accidents occur frequently. The said area be considered as high-risk area and risk-based inspection system would be implemented, which would nonetheless affect the safety and security of workers.

 III. Critical Analysis of the Boiler Safety, Liability, and Legislative Gaps

The Boilers Act, 2025, was brought to overhaul India’s legal framework governing boiler safety. Nonetheless, as mentioned above, the recent outpouring of boiler-related accidents underscores the urgency of addressing regulatory fallibilities. In 2024, 34 deaths were reported from boiler explosions nationwide. Historical data from the Directorate General of Factory Advice Service & Labour Institutes (“DGFASLI”) shows a decline in factory accidents from 2012 to 2021. Despite this decrease, boiler incidents in unregistered factories, such as the Gujarat explosion, often go unreported, implying that the real numbers might be higher, thereby making it pertinent to correct and analyse the identified persistent regulatory flaws and enforcement gaps.

A.    Liability for Intentional Tampering

The Boilers Act, 2025, fails to maintain stringent penalties for deliberate safety violations, particularly under Section 29, which addresses tampering with safety mechanisms. The acts such as creating unauthorised structural changes to a boiler, tampering with its safety valve, or allowing someone to enter the boiler without properly disconnecting it from steam, hot water, or fuel would attract merely a penalty and/or imprisonment of Rs. 1 Lakh and/or two years, respectively.

Let us suppose a scenario where a worker intentionally tampers with the safety valve of the boiler, resulting in the death of another worker, the Boiler Act, 2025, is likely to disregard the criminal liability making the said worker liable for merely two years of imprisonment. It is very unlikely that in such a situation the provisions will be aligned with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which silhouettes grave consequences for actions leading to harm through culpable homicide (causing death with knowledge of likely harm can result in life imprisonment of 5-10 years or/and, fine). In addition, death by negligence (negligent acts causing death without intent attract penalty of five years of imprisonment and a fine).

It can be inferred from the recent outbreak of boiler blasts that the decriminalization of minor offenses may proselytize a broader culture of leniency, indirectly proliferating the risk of neglect or tampering. The Gujarat and Telangana incidents, occurring in both illegal and legal factories, underline the need for robust enforcement to nip such lapses in the bud.

B.     Worker Safety and Decriminalization Concerns

The shift from imprisonment to fines for minor violations under the Boilers Act, 2025, raises significant concerns about worker safety, such as:

1. Weakened Deterrence: The fines imposed (between 5,000 and 1 lakh) can be seen as a cost of doing business, instead of being a deterrent, reducing the incentive for strict compliance. Such a perception could lead to maintenance lapses or non-adherence to safety protocols.
2. Administrative Gaps: Enforcement differs state to state, with some regions receiving subpar means or lacking financial resources or professional experience to conduct inspections. Exemptions under Section 38 further enfeeble oversight in accident-prone areas like Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
3. Erosion of Safety Culture: While serious offenses retain harsh penalties, the leniency for minor violations may signal a relaxed approach to safety, chipping away the culture of vigilance required in high-risk operations.

These concerns are paramount because the operations of boilers are risky and any slight negligence may cause disastrous effects as is evidenced by the recent events.

C.    Suggestion to include Absolute Liability in Boiler Accidents

Given the hazardous nature of boiler operations, it would be only appropriate to resort to absolute liability to ensure accountability and protect workers.  This principle was pronounced by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of MC Mehta v. Union of India, driven by the urgent need to respond to the realities of a rapidly industrializing India. Ina country where hazardous industries continue to expand, relying on the outdated rule of strict liability, with its many exceptions, was clearly inadequate. The Court recognized that when dangerous operations are carried out in densely populated and poorly regulated environments, even a single lapse can lead to catastrophic consequences. Emerging in the wake of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the judgment underscored the need for a no-excuses approach: enterprises engaging in inherently dangerous activities must bear complete responsibility for any resulting harm, irrespective of fault or negligence.

Absolute liability not only as a legal doctrine but as a necessary safeguard for public safety in the face of industrial risk, the core elements of it being – Engagement in Hazardous Activity, Potential Threat to Safety, and Strict Liability for Harm. Boiler operations, involving high-pressure steam and extreme temperatures, clearly meet these criteria. The catastrophic consequences of boiler failures, as seen in the Gujarat (21 deaths) and Telangana (over 40 deaths) blasts, underscore their potential to cause widespread harm. Applying absolute liability to boiler accidents would hold factory owners, occupiers, managers, and other responsible parties strictly accountable, ensuring prompt compensation for victims and incentivizing rigorous safety measures.

It has been almost half a century since this ruling came and it has not yet been realised that this approach aligns with the principles laid down in MC Mehta. By treating boiler blasts similarly to incidents involving hazardous substances, the legal framework would prioritize worker safety and deter negligence, countering the potential leniency introduced by the Boilers Act’s decriminalization provisions.

D.    Redundancy between the OSH Code and the Boilers Act

The OSH Code, 2020, was enacted to consolidate and streamline India’s fragmented labour laws, bringing 13 legislations, including of the Factories Act, 1948, into a single, cohesive framework for occupational safety and health. Section 24 of the Code gives the Central Government powers to determine the hazardous processes and prescribe safety measures, which could encompass boiler operations. On the other hand, the Boilers Act, 2025, only covers boilers by providing the standards to be observed in designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining them.

This duality raises an ultimate question with respect to workers safety: does there exist regulatory overlapping and, in case it does, can it be justified? The critics add that it was easy to include safety of boilers in the broader context of the OSH Code and thus having a separate law on it is unnecessary. Consolidating these frameworks could simplify compliance and improve regulatory efficiency. However, supporters of the Boilers Act point out that its highly technical provisions, like mandatory registration, periodic inspections, and certification, are specifically designed for managing high-risk equipment, going far beyond what the OSH Code currently prescribes. Rather than being redundant, the Boilers Act complements the OSH Code by providing a focused regulatory framework.

However, this complementarity starts to dissolve, when the provisions of the 2025 Act, such as, the ones related to dilution of safety enforcement, decriminalization of serious crimes and the broad expansion of governmental powers in providing exemptions, are taken into account. The amendments have a potential to undermine not only the spirit of the Boilers Act itself but also the general spirit of the OSH Code that is to have a strong and uniform structure of worker protection.

Indeed, while the OSH Code has not yet been formally notified, it represents a new, unified, and forward-looking approach to labour safety legislation. When such a comprehensive and modern legal structure is already in place, awaiting implementation, the continued existence of a separate Boilers Act, let alone its re-enactment in 2025, appears increasingly redundant. Therefore, the better path forward may lie not in parallel legislations, but in strengthening and operationalizing the OSH Code to fully absorb boiler safety under one robust, centralised regime.

 IV. Recommendations

A careful reading of the Boilers Act, 2025 alongside recent accidents, makes it evident that reforms cannot be cosmetic and must directly tackle the gaps in enforcement and structure, making further changes essential.

First, the decriminalisation of offences needs serious reconsideration. By reducing many violations to monetary fines, the Act has effectively diluted deterrence. When fines are treated as a routine business expense, there is little incentive for owners or managers to invest in preventive mechanisms. Reintroducing stricter punitive consequences, especially for violations directly endangering workers, would restore seriousness to compliance and signal that safety is not negotiable.

Second, the penalties under Section 29 for tampering with safety devices remain far too lenient in light of the risks involved. Acts such as disabling a safety valve or making unauthorised alterations to boilers can lead to mass casualties, yet the maximum punishment is capped at two years of imprisonment or a fine of one lakh. Aligning such penalties with the gravity of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita would ensure that intentional tampering is treated with the severity it deserves. This would not only deliver justice to victims but also deter reckless conduct that places lives at risk.

Third, given the inherently hazardous nature of boiler operations, the principle of absolute liability should be incorporated into the legal framework. The Supreme Court’s articulation in MC Mehta made it clear that enterprises engaged in dangerous activities must be held responsible for harm regardless of fault. Boiler explosions, which routinely result in catastrophic loss of life, fall squarely within this rationale. Express adoption of absolute liability would ensure swift compensation for victims and compel industries to maintain uncompromising safety standards.

Fourth, the powers given to state governments under Section 38 to grant exemptions demand reconsideration. While flexibility is valuable, unmonitored exemptions create uneven enforcement and allow unsafe operations to escape scrutiny. The Gujarat tragedy shows the danger of leaving such discretion unchecked. Any exemption regime must be subject to strict central oversight, ensuring that worker safety is never compromised for administrative convenience or ease of business.

Finally, there is the larger question of coherence between the Boilers Act and the OSH Code, 2020. Retaining a separate legislation on boilers creates duplication, confusion, and in some cases dilution of safety standards. Merging the two, while keeping the technical safeguards of the Boilers Act, would make the framework simpler and stronger.

The value of these changes lies in making safety enforceable in practice, not just promised in law.

V. Conclusion

The journey of the Boilers Act, from its colonial origins to the 2025 amendments, reflects the constant struggle between industrial growth and worker safety. On the one hand, the Act simplifies processes and seeks to encourage efficiency in inspection and compliance and on the other, it raises concerns about diluted accountability, light penalties, and exemptions that risk undermining its protective purpose. While progress has been made, the law has yet to fully address the realities of hazardous industries in a fast-changing economy.

What emerges clearly is that the Act cannot be seen only as a regulatory statute, it is also a statement of how much value is placed on human life in the workplace. Legal provisions must therefore be judged not just by how they ease business, but by how effectively they prevent accidents, enforce responsibility, and reassure workers of their right to safety, as, in Justice Krishna Iyer’s words:

“Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of subsistence. The children are deprived of nutritious food and opportunities for education and advancement in life.”