The Karnataka High Court Today (July 18) continued hearing the case on ACP Vikash Kumar’s suspension linked to the tragic Chinnaswamy Stadium IPL’s stampede. The Court questioned the legal grounds of the suspension, with sharp criticism from his counsel against the State’s stand.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court, on Thursday, continued hearing the appeal against the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order that cancelled the suspension of ACP Vikash Kumar Vikash.
His suspension came after the unfortunate stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium that led to the death of 11 people. The main question before the Court is whether this suspension was legally valid.
Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, who is representing ACP Vikash, argued strongly in Court that the officer was unfairly blamed for the tragic incident. He said the situation was unexpected, and the officers did their best under difficult conditions.
He stated,
“Many of the submissions made yesterday by my learned friend for the State contradict the position the government has taken before this Court.”
He further added a shocking point from the earlier hearing, saying,
“A statement was even made that these officers are servants of RCB. If that reflects the State’s official stance and not merely counsel’s argument, it is truly unfortunate.”
Chinnappa also referred to a report that the State government had submitted in a suo motu case. He said the government had first claimed it was only trying to find out the reasons for the incident. But later, it changed its stand and began blaming the officers for negligence.
He told the Court,
“First, they said they were only probing the causes, but then called it dereliction of duty, turning it into a punishment. The State told the High Court this was for accountability. Accountability, however, cannot be imposed before guilt is established — personal accountability by stepping down is a different matter.”
He strongly criticized the suspension order, saying there was no actual proof or proper file supporting it. He argued that only one paper, signed by the Chief Minister, existed — and even that didn’t mention any intelligence input or proper reason for suspension.
He said,
“There is no material justifying the suspension — only a file signed by the Chief Minister. There’s no reference to intelligence inputs or any basis behind the CM’s decision. Now, please look at the rules. They require a recorded satisfaction that suspension is necessary or desirable.”
At that point, the High Court asked,
“So it is subjective?”
Chinnappa replied,
“The grounds are objective, but the final decision is subjective.”
He warned that if this case sets a legal example, it would be dangerous. Officers might get punished whether they do their duty or not. He questioned the logic of blaming ACP Vikash when the senior-most official was still in charge.
He said,
“If the State’s stand is accepted, it becomes a classic case of being punished whether you act or don’t act. The Commissioner of Police was in charge and is the head — beyond him, who else were we expected to approach?”
Chinnappa explained that the officers were present and doing their duty when the stampede occurred. He said blaming them for something that happened while they were on the ground doesn’t make sense. He stressed that suspending someone isn’t a simple or automatic solution.
He told the Court,
“It’s one thing to allege the officers were absent or neglecting their duties, but entirely different when they were present, managing the crowd, and an incident still occurred. Even then, the necessity or desirability of suspension is a separate matter — suspension is not the solution.”
In a critical tone, Chinnappa even questioned the timing of the government’s suspension order. He mocked the idea that the government could predict what was going to happen before an inquiry was even done.
He said,
“Did the State have the foresight of a fortune teller to suspend the officers even before any inquiry reports were submitted?”
The High Court has now postponed the matter.
The next hearing will be held on Monday, July 21 at 2:30 PM.
CASE TITLE:
ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs MR.VIKASH KUMAR VIKASH AND OTHERS
WP 20160/2025
YESTERDAY SECOND HALF HEARING IN KARNATAKA HC
The Karnataka High Court Yesterday (July 17) took up the State Government’s appeal against a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that had allowed suspended ACP Vikash Kumar Vikash to return to work.
His suspension followed a tragic stampede on June 3 during the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) IPL victory parade, which left 11 people dead and raised big questions about police crowd management and responsibility.
A division bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and T.M. Nadaf heard the case.
Senior Advocate P.S. Rajagopal represented the State Government. As the hearing began, Rajagopal referred to the Police Act and read from past court judgments to support the State’s case.
“After the tribunal’s order, we now have the commission of inquiry and magisterial inquiry reports.”
Hearing this, the bench asked,
“So you’re admitting you had no material at the time of CAT’s order?”
Rajagopal replied,
“No — I’m saying this fortifies the authority’s decision at that time.”
The court continued,
“So, you say subsequent material adds to the reasons?”
Rajagopal confirmed,
“Yes. If it had gone against me, I could’ve been thrown out. But it supports our decision.”
He then said,
“Negligence alone may not amount to misconduct. But whether it qualifies as misconduct depends on the enormity of its consequences.”
He cited a judgment that stated,
“If negligence leads to grave consequences, it constitutes misconduct.”
To underline the seriousness of the incident, he said,
“In this case, there was serious human agony. It’s not a hypothetical — it actually happened. The consequence is real and evident.”
Talking about the officers’ actions, he pointed out,
“Yet, officers proceeded to make bandobast as if permission was presumed.”
He insisted that the suspension was justified, saying,
“There was no case to annul the suspension order. The officers acted recklessly. This was not a case where suspension was unwarranted.”
Rajagopal also expressed concern about how CAT handled the case.
“The Tribunal refused to receive my memo filed on June 30 with additional documents. The order wasn’t even pronounced till July 1.”
The court asked,
“What difference would that have made?”
Rajagopal answered,
“It could’ve influenced how the matter was viewed. At the very least, I would’ve felt I was convicted by a judge—not by the prosecutor.”
Meanwhile, the court also began hearing RCB’s side. The cricket team had objected to CAT’s comment that RCB was partly responsible for the crowd surge.
Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa appeared on behalf of ACP Vikash Kumar and said,
“I have no objection to what RCB argues, as long as it does not adversely affect my client.”
Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, appearing for RCB, questioned CAT’s comment about RCB’s tweets leading to the large crowds. He asked,
“How can RCB be blamed when it wasn’t even a party to the proceedings?”
He added,
“We know such observations aren’t binding, but since other inquiries are ongoing, expunging the remarks would be appropriate.”
He pointed out that there had been no objections from any party, saying no one had opposed such an order.
Back in defense of ACP Vikash, Senior Advocate Chinnappa argued,
“The State’s stance today is completely different from what it was before the CAT.”
He added,
“The very first line of their submissions today was about the ‘magnitude of crowd the city has never seen’. That was never their case earlier.”
To explain how officers had to make quick decisions, Chinnappa used a real-life example from the film Sully, which is based on a true story.
“He could either return to the airport or land elsewhere — he chose the river. There was a commission of inquiry into that decision too.”
Speaking about the inquiry process, he said,
“Simulations showed he could’ve landed at the airport. But the pilot asked — did you account for the fact that it was the first time this was happening?”
He emphasized,
“That’s the human element. Add those seconds of delay, and in every simulation, the plane crashes. He was cleared of all wrongdoing.”
Continuing, Chinnappa said,
“After an event like this, there are always post-mortems. People say — you should have done this, or that. But decisions are taken in seconds, under pressure.”
He pointed out that in such situations, it’s common for internal scapegoating to happen. So, top 3 officers are suspended.
Then he raised a very important question — Was this suspension to start a legal disciplinary process?
He answered, No — the order said it was to ‘ensure accountability’. That turns it into punishment, not preventive action. That can never be legally accepted.
Talking about the suspension rules, he claimed the legal standards were not met.
The bench joked,
“No one contemplated the victory would generate this much litigation.”
Chinnappa also explained the timeline after the stampede:
“After the incident, crowd dispersal was handled gradually until June 4 evening. Crowd control efforts continued. A report was submitted on June 4.”
He said, on June 5, the High Court took suo motu notice, leading to a series of actions —
(1) suspension of officers including ACP Kumar,
(2) appointment of a Deputy Commissioner,
(3) a magisterial inquiry, and
(4) transfer of the Intelligence head.
He said,
“The person who was supposed to brief the CM — the Intelligence head — was transferred. All this was portrayed as steps to ensure accountability.”
But he warned,
“But when you say someone is being held accountable, you’re already passing judgment that they were responsible. That makes it a measure of punishment, not preventive suspension.”
Chinnappa firmly concluded,
“Accountability can’t be achieved by suspending someone — that’s not what the law contemplates.”
Speaking about the on-ground situation, he added,
“Yes, many things could have been done. But crowds had to be managed in real time — people came from across Bengaluru and even outside the city.”
He ended by stating,
“Whatever could have been done was done. And that’s exactly what even the State has said.”
As the day’s hearing ended, the court noted,
“We will continue tomorrow.”
Senior Advocate Rajagopal responded,
“I’m not available tomorrow.”
The court said,
“Let Mr. Chinnappa complete his arguments tomorrow.”
To that, Rajagopal said,
“I’ll respond, if required, on Monday.”
YESTERDAY FIRST HALF HEARING IN KARNATAKA HC
Advocate Rajagopal earlier today 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.”
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
