Karnataka High Court slams sealed cover submission in RCB stampede case. Amicus says, “Our justice delivery system doesn’t approve of such things. It should be transparent.”
Bengaluru: Today, on July 01, the Karnataka High Court resumed the hearing of the suo motu case taken up in connection with the tragic stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4, 2024, during the celebrations of Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s (RCB) IPL victory.
The incident resulted in the unfortunate death of 11 people, prompting the Court to initiate proceedings in public interest.
The matter is being heard by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice C.M. Joshi.
Also Read: CID to Probe Bengaluru Stadium Stampede That Killed 11: Karnataka Govt Tells High Court
The Court has appointed Senior Advocate S. Susheela as amicus curiae to assist in the proceedings. Additionally, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), the event organiser DNA Entertainment, and the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) have been added as respondents.
At the beginning of the hearing, the Court called upon the Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty, who appeared on behalf of the State.
Court:
“Yes, Mr. Shetty?”
AG Shashi Kiran Shetty suggested a short deferment, saying:
“The issue may become academic. If we take it up after 10 days, the report might be ready, then we may not even need to argue whether it should be made public.”
Responding firmly, Amicus Curiae S. Susheela questioned the State’s approach of submitting the report in a sealed cover and stated:
“In what circumstances can be when they can withhold the document from public. They gave the report in sealed covers which was not advisable by the court. Had it been a regular writ petition, we would have placed material by way of statement of objections; the copy of the same would be available to everyone.”
She pressed further, questioning the delay in disclosure:
“I can understand that this document cannot be disclosed but why can they not disclose it now but do the same after 10 days.”
Raising the concern of transparency, she remarked:
“Our justice delivery system doesn’t approve of such things. It should be transparent. Here what document is held is safe custody is also not disclosed and that why it should be help that way for this period of time.”
On the critical issue of legal procedure, she submitted:
“The question is whether these documents and the status report would affect the inquiry. Once a status report is filed before the Court, it essentially functions like a statement of objections. Can it then be withheld? This is the first time we’re encountering such a scenario.”
She reminded the Court that the matter was not one of confidentiality related to national security:
“Here the case is not the case of national or state security. State should not be afraid to place any document in front of the public. One aspect my learned counsel said that it will have an impact on another proceedings. They will have to explain the same.”
Referring to legal principles governing disclosure, she added:
“In all these decisions it has been said that it has to be determined that whether public interest is in disclosure of the document or not.”
Bringing in the doctrine of proportionality, the amicus noted:
“If the doctrine of proportionality is applied, the key question becomes whether public interest favours disclosure of the information. This issue has been considered in several judgments. The Court will have to weigh proportionality, confidentiality concerns, and public interest,” she submitted.
In reply, AG Shetty attempted to justify the confidentiality, stating that the judicial commission had been constituted only recently and that the status report should not interfere with ongoing inquiries:
“At the time the Court passed its order, only a magisterial inquiry was in place, the judicial commission had not yet been constituted. Now that the commission has drawn certain conclusions, the State’s statements in the status report shouldn’t be relied upon in either the judicial or magisterial inquiries, to ensure those proceedings remain independent.”
He clarified that the State is not invoking national or state security interests and only seeks a 10-day confidentiality to avoid influencing other proceedings:
“We are not claiming national or state interest. I just want the impartial report to come out after considering everyone’s perspective—the victims, management, state, etc. Kindly have it after 10 days. It is all academic.”
He pleaded with the Court:
“I just don’t want the issue to be prejudged.”
The Court briefly intervened, stating:
“They are entitled to….”
To which the AG responded:
“Your lordships they are certainly entitled to I am just saying that do it after 10 days.”
Another counsel supporting the public interest angle said:
“This is not an adversarial litigation. Ultimately, the Court has rightly chosen to treat this as a public interest matter to frame broader guidelines. This proceeding isn’t meant to collect evidence—two separate inquiries are already underway where evidence is being recorded. The real question before the Court is: How should such large-scale events be organized to prevent tragedies like this in the future?”
Emphasizing that the State’s intention was not permanent secrecy, another lawyer clarified:
“The state does not want to keep it in seal forever. They just want 10 days. They just want confidentiality for 10 days so it does not impact the commission of inquiry. That’s all I am saying.”
Still unconvinced, the amicus curiae reiterated her stand:
“Just one point to add. Mr. AG sought a 10-day deferment citing the status report and suggesting its contents may be true or partially true, but I don’t believe that’s a tenable or acceptable position to take.”
AG responded firmly in defense of the State’s efforts:
“I just don’t want it to create a prejudice.”
He further asserted the State’s proactive approach:
“Here the state has done much more than anyone else than in India in any stampede case. Please take in consideration all these aspects. It will all be given to them in 10 days.”
The Court then passed directions, noting that KSCA and RCB have already filed their replies, and that DNA Entertainment has assured that their reply will be submitted by tomorrow. The Court instructed that all responses be shared with the State and the amicus curiae.
During the discussion, a suggestion was floated regarding imposing a media ban to prevent premature publication of the State’s status report.
However, it was emphasized that the respondents must still have access to the report, and that transparency must remain at the forefront.
Case No. WA 1314/2024
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stampede
