Today, On 25th July, In Chinnaswamy Stampede Case, DNA has moved the Karnataka High Court against the judicial commission’s report, calling it biased and pre-planned. The High Court has agreed to hear the matter on Monday, July 28.
Bengaluru: Event management company DNA Entertainment Networks has filed a petition with the Karnataka High Court challenging a judicial commission report that identifies the company and its officials as responsible for the stampede that occurred on June 4 outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru.
The matter was brought before a Bench of Justices Jayant Banerjee and SG Pandit, who have scheduled a hearing for Monday, July 28.
The stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium happened when over 300,000 fans gathered in anticipation of meeting the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) team following their IPL cricket victory on June 3.
Also Read: CID to Probe Bengaluru Stadium Stampede That Killed 11: Karnataka Govt Tells High Court
The team was expected to arrive at the stadium on the evening of June 4.
However, the celebratory atmosphere turned tragic when a stampede ensued at the stadium gates, resulting in 11 fatalities and over 50 injuries.
In response to the incident, the State initiated an inquiry led by a judicial commission chaired by retired High Court judge Justice John Michael D’ Cunha to investigate the events leading to the stampede and recommend corrective measures.
In his report, Justice Cunha concluded that the stampede occurred due to the organizers’ recklessness and their failure to manage crowd entry into the stadium. He recommended legal action against RCB, DNA, and the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), which oversees stadium rentals, as well as several officials, including police personnel.
DNA has contested these findings, asserting that it was the police and other State authorities who failed to manage the crowd effectively outside the stadium, which led to the stampede. The company maintains that it bears no responsibility for the crowd situation.
Additionally, DNA claimed that it had not received a copy of the judicial commission’s report prior to its submission and that the report was leaked to the media before the company could access it, thus violating principles of natural justice.
DNA stated,
“The fact that the impugned Report is leaked to the press but not given to the Petitioner till date makes it clear that the Respondents have acted in a pre-planned manner with a vendetta to implicate the Petitioner and its officials falsely,”
The company also argued that the judicial commission did not allow DNA and its directors the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, which it contends is required under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.
The petition mentions that directors Venkata Varadhana Thimmaiah and Sunil Mathew appeared on two occasions in June to provide their statements to the commission.
However, DNA alleges that some of their responses were inaccurately recorded, and the commission failed to correct these errors despite requests.
Moreover, DNA has questioned why it was not provided with copies of depositions made by its witnesses and others, despite its requests for this information.
The urgency with which the inquiry report was produced suggests that the State aimed to shield itself from accountability, leading DNA to describe the inquiry as a mere “eye wash” designed to appease the public and shift blame onto them.
The petition has been filed through Advocate Suraj Sampath of BK Sampath Kumar & Associates.
A criminal case has been filed against the officials of RCB, DNA, and the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), which oversees stadium rentals. All accused parties subsequently approached the High Court to challenge the criminal charges. The KSCA has already received interim relief from the High Court regarding this issue.
Moreover, several officials from DNA and RCB, including RCB’s marketing head Nikhil Sosale, who were previously arrested, have been granted interim bail.
In a notable development, the High Court has initiated a suo motu case concerning the situation.
Case Title: DNA Entertainment Networks Private Limited v. State of Karnataka and ors