Karnataka High Court Closes Suo Motu PIL on Chinnaswamy Stampede, Says Case Can Reopen After Crowd Control Law Is Passed

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Karnataka High Court closed the suo motu PIL over the Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede that killed 11 people, noting the State’s new Crowd Control Bill and SOP. The Court said the matter can be reopened if concerns remain after the law is enacted.

The Karnataka High Court on Monday closed the suo motu case that it had started on its own after the tragic stampede outside the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru on June 5, 2025, which resulted in the death of 11 people and injuries to 56 others.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha decided to close the matter after taking note of the steps taken by the Karnataka government to prevent such incidents in the future.

The State has introduced the Karnataka Crowd Control (Managing Crowd at Events and Place of Gatherings) Bill, 2025 and has also framed a Standard Operating Protocol (SOP) for crowd management. The Bill is currently pending before the State Assembly for approval.

During the course of the hearings, the Court-appointed Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate S. Susheela informed the Bench that the SOP should be strictly implemented until the new Bill becomes law. She also pointed out that there were certain shortcomings in the proposed legislation which required attention.

The High Court took note of these submissions. However, the Bench observed that since the State government had already initiated concrete measures by introducing a new law and framing an SOP, there was no need to keep the suo motu proceedings pending at this stage. The Court made it clear that if concerns still remain even after the Bill is enacted, the case can be reopened.

While disposing of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Court directed that the concerns raised by the amicus regarding the shortcomings in the Bill should be placed before the concerned House Committee of the State Legislature for consideration. The Bench further clarified that the State’s SOP on crowd management must continue to be implemented until the Bill is passed and brought into force.

Advocate General K. Shashi Kiran Shetty appeared and argued on behalf of the Karnataka government.

The tragic incident had occurred when a large number of fans gathered outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium to celebrate the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) cricket team’s Indian Premier League (IPL) victory. The celebrations were planned to mark RCB’s first IPL win in 18 years, and the team was scheduled to arrive at the stadium to meet supporters.

Reports suggested that entry to the stadium was initially ticketed. However, it was later allegedly announced that free entry would be allowed. This sudden change reportedly led to a massive rush of people at the gates, causing chaos and ultimately resulting in the stampede.

Following the incident, criminal cases were registered against the management of the cricket team as well as the event management company, DNA Entertainment. The State government first ordered a magisterial inquiry and later constituted a judicial commission headed by a retired High Court judge to investigate the circumstances that led to the tragedy.

Several Public Interest Litigations were filed before the Karnataka High Court seeking accountability from both the event organisers and the State authorities. Considering the seriousness of the issue and the loss of lives, the High Court decided to register the matter as a suo motu case.

With the introduction of a proposed crowd control law and an operational SOP aimed at preventing similar incidents, the Court has now formally closed the suo motu proceedings, while leaving the door open to revisit the issue if necessary after the Bill is enacted.

Click Here to Read Our Reports on Chinnaswamy Stampede

author

Hardik Khandelwal

I’m Hardik Khandelwal, a B.Com LL.B. candidate with diverse internship experience in corporate law, legal research, and compliance. I’ve worked with EY, RuleZero, and High Court advocates. Passionate about legal writing, research, and making law accessible to all.

Similar Posts