DNA alleges denial of natural justice, seeks commission report access amid media leaks. HC to hear matter next on August 5.
Bengaluru: On July 29, the Karnataka High Court began hearing the petition filed by DNA (Dynamic News Agency) regarding the tragic stampede that occurred outside Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4, 2025. The incident reportedly took place when a massive crowd gathered to see the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) team following their IPL victory on June 3.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices Jayant Banerji and Umesh Adiga. Senior Advocate Sampath Kumar appeared for DNA and informed the Court that the company had submitted the required company resolution and affidavit authorizing the filing of the petition.
Advocate Sampath Kumar narrated the events leading to the stampede.
He said,
“On June 4 a huge crowd gathered outside Chinnaswamy Stadium to see the RCB team after their June 3 IPL win. Earlier a large crowd had assembled at Vidhan Soudha, and on the suggestion of some unnamed politicians people were directed to the stadium. The stampede occurred because the police couldn’t control the crowd.”
Highlighting the severity of the incident, Kumar stated,
“Eleven people lost their lives in the stampede, and only then did the government wake up and set up a commission of inquiry.”
He further submitted that the commission has already submitted its report, but
“till date, DNA hasn’t been given a copy. We asked for it because one of DNA’s directors wanted to correct parts of his deposition he felt some of his statements weren’t even recorded.”
The Court intervened by asking,
“What exactly are you challenging? And under what procedure?”
To which Kumar responded,
“First the principles of natural justice weren’t followed. Second under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, we are entitled to a personal hearing and copies of depositions.”
When the Court inquired whether DNA was given the right to cross-examine witnesses or present evidence, Kumar firmly denied:
“No, that didn’t happen.”
He added,
“We learned through the media that the Cabinet has accepted the report. We have filed two applications but still haven’t received a copy.”
The Court further asked if the report was presented before the legislature, to which Kumar replied, “No.”
He continued:
“We came to know through the print media that the commission submitted its report to the government on July 11 well beyond the one month timeline.”
Raising a key issue about the testimony, the Court remarked,
“You are claiming your cross-examination wasn’t recorded properly. In a civil suit, would such an application be allowed?”
One of the judges asked,
“Can you raise all this now? The key issue is did you sign the testimony? If so, it’s presumed you read and agreed to it. You can’t later say you made a wrong statement.”
To this, Kumar clarified,
“I’m not saying I made a wrong statement. I’m saying what I said wasn’t recorded accurately which caused prejudice.”
He went on to explain that,
“The DNA director was in jail for six days — his arrest was later held illegal and he was granted bail by this Court. He needed time to collect documents. A memo was also filed by counsel that same day.”
He added,
“The media recently published photos of those named in the report.”
The Court insisted on addressing one issue at a time. Kumar highlighted procedural lapses, stating,
“In any civil or criminal case, depositions are given to parties to check for errors before signing. That wasn’t done here. I’m told objections raised during cross-examination weren’t even recorded.”
The Court asked,
“Were any objections raised on the day the deposition was recorded?”
to which Kumar said,
“Yes, but they weren’t recorded. If the video is reviewed, it’ll show that the advocate’s objections were ignored. What was said and what was recorded didn’t match.”
The Court followed up with,
“Was any application filed that same day?”
Kumar replied,
“No, we waited to collect documents and then filed the memo within 13 days — well within the timeline set by the State.”
He added,
“In a commission inquiry the same person acts as judge, jury and executioner. If the video is reviewed, we can prove our claims. The report was placed before the Cabinet and recommends action against DNA, RCB, KSCA, and some police officials.”
He further contended,
“We still haven’t received a copy of the commission report. Meanwhile, the media — print, electronic, and social — is naming and shaming us. Reputations are being damaged.”
When asked by the Court,
“Can you legally demand the report before it’s placed before the legislature?”
Kumar argued,
“Yes. If the media has access, why shouldn’t we? Where are they getting this info from?”
The Court posed the question,
“Should this be tagged with the suo motu case before the Chief Justice?”
Kumar objected, saying,
“No, this is a separate issue. If I filed it there, they say it’s unrelated.”
The Advocate General (AG) informed the Court that,
“The suo motu case is being heard this afternoon by the Chief Justice’s Bench.”
Also Read: CID to Probe Bengaluru Stadium Stampede That Killed 11: Karnataka Govt Tells High Court
To this, the Court responded,
“We will only examine if the commission followed principles of natural justice.”
Kumar agreed:
“Agreed — that’s the only issue we’re raising here, no need to club it with the other case.”
Kumar passionately added,
“We are not given the report but the rest of the friend seems to have it. Every minute I am being defamed. My reputation has been taking a toll.”
The Court asked the AG,
“Now that they have confined their arguments to natural justice and that were not allowed of cross examine. What is your response to that?”
The AG replied,
“The commission’s report isn’t even before the court yet. He filed the petition within 24 hours.”
Kumar interjected,
“We filed two applications for the report and depositions. Let’s not overlook the facts or mislead the court.”
The AG argued,
“He doesn’t come to court but reads a newspaper article and comes.”
The Court admitted,
“We don’t know what matters have been considered in the suo motu.”
The AG noted,
“The incident was the scope under suo motu also.”
The Court asked,
“Can you produce the report under sealed cover?” The AG responded, “If your lordships say, we will.”
The Court acknowledged,
“Yes, newspapers have reported it but whether they got the report or just heard it is unclear.”
Kumar challenged this, asking,
“Then how did they get such detailed info? Have any steps been taken? The reports clearly say criminal action is recommended.”
The Court observed,
“Well newspapers are always in black and white.”
The AG requested the Court,
“Just a request since the suo motu PIL is being heard today maybe defer this case. There is no urgency here, the only prayer is to quash the report. Let’s first see what the PIL Bench says.”
ALSO READ: Bengaluru Stampede: Karnataka High Court Gets Case Files, Demands English Translation
Concluding the hearing, the Court said,
“You have placed your submissions. We are adjourning the matter. Both of you can tell what is being said in that PIL matter. We have heard you at length so we are posting the matter for Tuesday.”
The Bench confirmed with Mr. Sampath that his submissions are limited.
“Mr Sampath, you are only restricting your submission to 8b?”
to which he replied,
“8b, 8c, natural justice and the defamation.”
In its order, the Court noted:
“Mr Sampath has stated in the bar that he is confining his arguments to the aspect of natural justice. The petitioners did not have opportunity to depose witnesses against them and did not get the opportunity to state his case. Further he pleading that notice to Resp no 3 should be dispensed with. This prayer is granted. The learned AG has stated about the suo motu PIL which is listed today. Under these circumstances we adjourn the matter.”
The case is now scheduled for further hearing on 5th August at 2:30 PM.
Case Title:
Dynamic News Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stampede
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
