Karnataka High Court Today (July 17) is reviewing the suspension of ACP Vikash Kumar after the deadly IPL’s RCB victory parade. The State criticises CAT’s decision, saying police acted without proper clearance or preparation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court is currently looking into a case filed by the State government. This case challenges the decision made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had allowed ACP Vikash Kumar Vikash to return to duty.
He was earlier suspended after a tragic stampede during the RCB victory parade on June 3 in Bengaluru. This stampede led to the death of 11 people and caused widespread concern about police planning and responsibility.
A division bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and T.M. Nadaf is handling the matter.
Senior Advocate P.S. Rajagopal is representing the State government in the court.
This case is focused on the suspension of ACP Vikash Kumar, who was among the officers responsible during the chaotic scenes that followed the sudden RCB parade after their IPL win.
Advocate Rajagopal strongly criticised the actions of the police. He said that they started making security arrangements without checking if the event had legal permission.
“When RCB made a last-minute request to hold a victory parade, police officers started making bandobast as if they were servants of RCB, without even checking for permissions.”
He told the court that even the top officers in the police department joined in the arrangements without making sure the parade was actually approved.
“From Commissioner downwards, everyone jumped in to arrange security. They forgot one simple thing — the event was never permitted officially.”
Reading from official records, Rajagopal highlighted how predictable the risk was, considering RCB had never won before and public excitement was high.
“Cricket is an emotional topic. RCB’s first win was bound to attract huge crowds. Was the applicant [ACP] unaware of this on June 3? What steps did he take?”
Even though the parade didn’t have official approval, the police allowed it to happen, Rajagopal noted.
“Even if the event wasn’t permitted, why didn’t they issue a written prohibitory order? Instead, they facilitated the event. Why?”
Rajagopal then listed several major lapses by the police department:
- No public safety instructions were issued.
- Senior officers were not consulted properly.
- Crowd control planning was completely missing.
- The entire situation caused “embarrassment” to the police force.
He firmly said:
“Occurrences speak for themselves,”
“There was no consultation with senior officers. No SOP followed.”
He defended the decision to suspend ACP Vikash, explaining that it was not a punishment but a fair step in such serious matters:
“In such serious matters, especially involving senior ranks, officers must be kept out of office during inquiry. Only then will public come forward to file complaints.”
Rajagopal disagreed with the CAT’s decision to cancel the suspension. He explained that the tribunal wrongly focused on one rule and ignored others.
“CAT relied heavily on Rule 10(3), but ignored Rule 3 — which talks about the circumstances requiring suspension. Two judgments say it’s not a fetter, it’s a guiding factor.”
He also accused the tribunal of exposing sensitive internal records:
“They asked for flow of events. We gave it in sealed cover. Now they’ve quoted it extensively. Once CAT publishes it, how can it still be confidential?”
According to Rajagopal, the CAT focused on the wrong aspect:
“The CAT focuses on all aspects of Rule 3 relating to suspension after chargesheet. But what it should have focused on is the initial stage — whether suspension was necessary at the outset. That’s where the tribunal falters.”
He also added that the tribunal knew the facts:
“It’s not that the CAT was unaware of the facts — the order itself records that the suspended officers did not consult higher-ups. That omission lies at the very root of the tragedy.”
Rajagopal argued that if the police had issued a proper order banning the parade, things would have been different:
“If the police had issued a proper prohibition order — given that no permission was granted to the event — then the organisers would’ve been forced to approach the court.”
“And in that case,” he tells the bench,
“This very court could have passed an order by 1:30 PM on June 3, binding both parties — and the tragedy could have been prevented.”
He raised an important question about the responsibility of police:
What should the police do when someone asks for bandobast (security) for an event that is not approved and needs a license?
Rajagopal felt that the CAT wrongly assumed that police had no role if organisers failed to get permissions:
“How can that be?”
He said the police clearly had the power to stop the tragedy:
“Police had full authority to prevent the tragedy. And they failed to exercise it.”
Rajagopal also read from the CAT’s own order, which acknowledged the problems:
- The tribunal accepted that RCB’s parade drew huge crowds.
- It also noted that police had very little time to prepare.
But Rajagopal criticised one particular line from the CAT order:
“RCB created nuisance without prior permission.”
To this, he gave a sharp response:
“As if nuisance can be created with prior permission!”
He also mocked another dramatic statement from the tribunal:
“Police are not God or Bhagwan or a magician with magic powers to control crowds on short notice.”
To this, Rajagopal replied:
“Excellent story, but this can be told by grandparents to grandchildren, not by a court to litigants.”
He reminded the court again that suspension was only a temporary step:
“I have not punished them. Suspension is only an interim measure to keep them out of mischief during inquiry.”
Responding to CAT’s belief that the police didn’t have enough time, Rajagopal clarified:
“We never asked them to organise. The duty was to prevent.”
CAT had even suggested lifting the suspension of all officers involved. Rajagopal questioned this:
“I don’t know whether the Tribunal was speaking for the police union or deciding the actual case.”
He also referred to a letter sent at 6:30 PM on June 3 by the organisers, which led to the request for police protection. Quoting from the letter, he told the court:
“Duty of police is to prevent crime and disorder; efficiency is measured by absence of both — not by visibility of steps taken.”
The High Court has now postponed the hearing.
The matter will be continued at 2:30 PM.
EARLIER IN KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The State Government on July 2 moved to the Karnataka High Court against the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision that cancelled the suspension of Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vikash Kumar Vikash.
His suspension followed a tragic stampede outside Bengaluru’s Chinnaswamy Stadium that occurred on June 4, 2025, where 11 people died and 56 were injured.
The CAT, in an order passed on July 1 by members BK Shrivastava and Santosh Mehra, ruled that the suspension was issued without strong reasons or proper evidence.
The Tribunal said,
“In view of this Tribunal the (government) order Annexure – A3 has been passed in a mechanical manner and the order is not based upon the convincing materials. The Police officers have been suspended without any sufficient material or grounds. Hence, the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed.”
Following this, the Tribunal directed the State government to immediately reinstate ACP Vikash.
The stampede happened when thousands of fans gathered outside Chinnaswamy Stadium to welcome the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) team after their victory in the IPL 2025. In the aftermath, the Karnataka government suspended five police officers including Vikash Kumar Vikash, B Dayananda, Shekar H Tekkannavar, C Balakrishna (ACP, Cubbon Park), and AK Girish (Police Inspector, Cubbon Park) for alleged negligence in handling the crowd.
ACP Vikash challenged his suspension in CAT, and the Tribunal ruled in his favor. However, the State government is now challenging that decision in the Karnataka High Court.
According to the government’s petition, the Tribunal made findings as if a full departmental inquiry had already taken place, even though that was not the case. The government argues this is a wrong approach in law and against normal judicial procedure for handling suspensions.
The State’s petition further states,
“Apart from that the contents of the Suspension Order, the State Government had placed on record the relevant extracts of the Karnataka Police Manual and also the analysis of the sequence of events that had unfolded on 03-06-2025 and 04-06-2025, which were submitted in a sealed cover to the Tribunal and substantial material was placed before the Tribunal in justification of the suspension order. The Hon’ble CAT without considering the said material on record in its right perspective has quashed the Suspension Order.”
The government also argues that the Tribunal misunderstood the purpose and status of both the magisterial inquiry and the one-man commission that were set up to investigate the stampede. These investigations are still in progress, and identifying those responsible is ongoing.
The government states that based on the initial investigation and under proper service rules, the competent authority confirmed Vikash’s suspension. They also noted that the Central government had already ordered a departmental inquiry which is in an advanced stage. This was verbally informed to the Tribunal on June 30.
“However, the same has not been considered by the Tribunal in its final order and the same ought to have been atleast noticed by the Tribunal before passing the final order especially in the context of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969,”
-the petition says.
The plea also criticizes the Tribunal for making observations about the reinstatement of the four other suspended officers who were not part of the case and did not even approach the Tribunal.
“The Tribunal has rendered an opinion on matters outside the pleadings and beyond the record, which clearly reflects a prejudicial approach and a departure from settled legal principles.”
The High Court will now decide whether CAT’s order was legally justified or if the State’s arguments warrant reinstating the suspension of ACP Vikash Kumar Vikash.
BACKGROUND
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on July 1 cancelled the Karnataka government’s suspension order against Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vikash Kumar Vikash.
His suspension was related to the tragic stampede outside Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru on June 4, 2025, where 11 people lost their lives and 56 others were injured.
The crowd had gathered to celebrate Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s (RCB) IPL victory.
A bench consisting of members BK Shrivastava and Santosh Mehra ruled that the government suspended the officer without strong evidence or proper reasoning.
“In view of this Tribunal the (government) order Annexure – A3 has been passed in a mechanical manner and the order is not based upon the convincing materials. The Police officers have been suspended without any sufficient material or grounds. Hence, the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed.”
The Tribunal ordered the Karnataka government to immediately reinstate Vikash.
Following the stampede, the government had suspended Vikash along with B Dayananda, Shekar H Tekkannavar, C Balakrishna (Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cubbon Park), and AK Girish (Police Inspector, Cubbon Park), blaming them for failure in duty.
Challenging his suspension, Vikash approached the CAT. His lawyer argued that no show cause notice was given before suspending him and that no chance was given to defend himself. The lawyer also said suspension is a very harsh action and should only be used in serious cases like corruption or criminal negligence. Since the official magisterial inquiry is still going on and no findings have been made against Vikash, the suspension is unfair and should be cancelled.
The government lawyer claimed that the police failed to prevent the crowd from gathering, which led to the tragedy. According to the government, the police officers, including Vikash, showed “a substantial dereliction of duty.”
However, CAT said the suspension order didn’t explain how this conclusion was reached without a completed inquiry.
It also said that the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) had only informed the Cubbon Park Police Inspector about the RCB victory parade—not Vikash.
“After mentioning the name of 5 officers, it is mentioned in the order that the CEO of RCB had intimated Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City on 03.06.2025 about holding the victory parade and celebration on 04.06.2025. The aforesaid portion of the order is not correct because the respondents did not submit the copy of any intimation submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru on 03.06.2025. The respondents himself submitted the copy of letter Annexure – R2 in this regard.”
The Tribunal also pointed out that RCB did not take permission as required under the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bengaluru City) Order, 2009.
Since the government has not yet completed the inquiry, it is still unclear who is truly responsible for the incident. CAT observed that RCB may have caused the stampede by sharing the celebration event details on social media without getting police approval.
“Without obtaining the permission from the Police or without the consent of concerned Police Officers, the franchise of RCB placed the information to the public on social media platforms.”
CAT said RCB’s post resulted in a crowd of 3 to 5 lakh people arriving at a stadium that can only hold 35,000 people.
“RCB did not take the appropriate permission or consent from the Police. Suddenly, they posted on social media platforms and as a result of aforesaid information the public were gathered. Because of shortage of time on 04.06.2026, the Police was unable to do the appropriate arrangements. Sufficient time was not given to the Police.”
The Tribunal added that the police had limited powers in such a sudden situation.
“Alladin ka Chirag”
With this, CAT ruled that Vikash’s suspension was unfair and should be cancelled.
The Tribunal also said that other officers who are similarly affected should also get justice, even if they haven’t approached the court yet.
“We also feel our duty to draw attention of the State Government towards the settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of government department has approached the Court and obtain a declaration of law in his/her favour, other similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to come to Court.”
Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa and Advocate Dhanush Menon represented Vikash Kumar Vikash.
Additional Advocate General Reuben Jacob and Advocate M Rajakumar appeared for the State government.
CASE TITLE:
Vikash Kumar Vikash v State & Ors
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Bengaluru Stampede
Click Here to Read Our Reports on RCB
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
