The Supreme Court examines TVK’s petition challenging the Madras High Court’s SIT probe into the Karur stampede. Key questions arise over criminal jurisdiction and procedural lapses in handling the tragic incident.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court heard a petition filed by actor Vijay’s political party, the Tamil Nadu-based Makkal Needhi Maiam (TVK), challenging the Madras High Court’s order directing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the tragic Karur stampede. The incident, which occurred in September, left 41 people dead and 146 injured during a public event.
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing TVK, clarified that the petition was filed for a “limited purpose,” seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the government to develop a protocol for managing such gatherings. He emphasized that
“the Advocate General appeared, and allegations were made for non-compliance of orders, with serious observations against individuals who are not parties.”
Justice J. Maheshwari questioned the basis of the petition, observing,
“Para 3 mentions a government advocate filing a writ petition for investigation. This petition was filed under Section 226 in Chennai. Can such relief fall under criminal jurisdiction? How can it be registered as a criminal writ petition?”
Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram highlighted jurisdictional issues, noting that
“jurisdiction is normally Madurai unless the Chief Justice expressly constitutes a special bench to hear it.”
Subramanium added that the matter should have been heard by the Madurai Bench, which had already entertained related petitions. He noted procedural irregularities, stating that counsel appeared “without any affidavit being called.”
Subramanium criticized the Madras High Court’s impugned order of October 3, arguing that some observations were incorrect. He said,
“The man in question was escorted outside by police, and he was not even made a party to the case. How can observations be made without giving him a chance to explain?”
Sundaram added that Vijay’s presence at the site was compelled by the police, who believed it could aggravate the situation:
“The police compelled Vijay to leave the site, stating that his continued presence could worsen the situation.”
Both advocates agreed that while the SIT could proceed, it should be impartial. Sundaram urged the Court, stating:
“Our only request is that an SIT comprising just three state police officers could be problematic. We need a retired Supreme Court judge to oversee the investigation to ensure fairness. If a retired judge is appointed to chair the SIT, they should also have the freedom to select its members.”
Subramanium expressed confidence in the SIT, saying,
“Your Lordships may constitute an SIT; we have complete faith in the process.”
The State’s counsel, Mukul Rohatgi, noted procedural complexities, explaining that the writ petition was pending before the Chennai Bench, and a separate matter filed by an individual led to the Madras High Court’s present order. Senior Advocate P. Wilson added,
“Whenever a matter involves the police, the registry categorizes it as a criminal writ petition.”
A counsel whose son died in the stampede addressed the Court, seeking a CBI probe into the incident. Justice Maheshwari asked,
“You are not a party to this case. What relief are you seeking?”
The counsel responded,
“I am seeking a CBI probe. The police’s role must also be investigated, as there is an order noting the investigation is unsatisfactory.”
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Toxic Cough Syrup: Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Probe into Child Deaths
Justice Maheshwari also highlighted procedural concerns, stating:
“The SOP permission came before the Madurai Bench because of the Karur incident. When a division bench is aware that a single judge is already hearing the matter, entertaining it here is a procedural fallacy.”
Rohatgi clarified that the Court had appointed the SIT under the impugned judgment and had no “axe to grind.”
The proceedings were adjourned for lunch, with hearings to resume in the afternoon. Justice Maheshwari indicated that no observations would be made at this stage.
The post-lunch proceedings in the Supreme Court resumed. Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing as the father of one of the victims who died in the tragic stampede, expressed deep anguish over what he termed “outsiders obstructing the cause of real victims.”
“I am the father of a boy who died in the stampede. These outsiders create obstacles, preventing the real victims from having their say,”
Naidu submitted, referring to three unrelated individuals who had filed separate writ petitions.
“Before the proceedings could even be finalized, someone rushed in claiming to represent my cause,”
he added, noting that he only approached the court after cremating his son on the 29th.
“Expecting me to rush earlier is heartless,”
he said emotionally.
Naidu argued that the police bore the responsibility of supervision and that despite permissions being granted and monitored by the single judge, the investigation had shown “clear signs of failure.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State, countered firmly that the mere fact of others approaching the High Court first “cannot be a reason to transfer the case.”
“Acting as parens patriae, the State immediately constituted an SIT,” Singhvi stated. “No one, including Gopal’s client, suggested at that time that a CBI probe was needed.”
He emphasized that the investigating team was composed of “top-notch officers,” mentioning that one of them, Garg—who earlier handled the Ryan International School case—had since been promoted.
Justice J. Maheshwari, presiding, observed that the father’s inability to approach earlier could not by itself invalidate the petitions.
“You may say that you were prevented from approaching earlier,” Justice Maheshwari noted, “but that cannot be a reason to dismiss the matter simply because you did not file the petition yourself.”
Singhvi, citing precedent from the West Bengal case, reminded the bench that a transfer of investigation can only be ordered “in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear abdication of duty.”
“Repeatedly, courts have emphasized that transfers cannot be ordered routinely or merely because allegations are made against the State,” he argued. “At this nascent stage, there’s no material of negligence. The SIT and the inquiry led by retired Justice Aruna were set up promptly and are functioning effectively.”
When Justice Maheshwari asked whether Singhvi believed the appointed officer was fair, the latter responded affirmatively:
“Yes, Your Lordship. There is no indication of bias or negligence. Requests for CBI probes involve issues of federalism—CBI requires State consent except in exceptional situations. Such transfers should be sparing.”
Naidu maintained that the single judge’s earlier remarks on a “shoddy investigation” were based on specific material presented to the court.
Adding to the chorus of concerns, Senior Advocate Raghavachari pointed to political influence and inconsistencies in permissions.
“An ambulance without a number plate, bearing a sticker of Senthil Balaji, was allowed into the crowd,” he said. “All senior officials claim nothing was wrong, placing the entire blame on Vijay. If superior officers assert everything was in order, can we expect a fair probe from the same police?”
He further submitted that while the AIADMK was denied permission for the same venue on grounds of congestion, TVK was approved that very location a month later.
“If crowding was an issue for AIADMK, it should have been for TVK as well. The state police are entirely at fault,”
he argued.
Justice Maheshwari appeared to question the procedural propriety of the High Court’s handling of the petitions:
“I am unable to understand,” the judge remarked. “The Chennai Court is not focusing on the prayer actually filed. There needs to be attention to propriety here—the prayer is different, yet the Court is considering entirely separate issues.”
Advocate Wilson, representing the State, sought time to file a detailed counter.
“The incident on the 27th caused a huge public outcry, with people pleading for the release of the bodies,” Wilson said. “The Collector then granted permission. Scathing allegations have been made, and we will verify the facts. But the key question is whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify a transfer.”
He confirmed that investigations into “chappal throwing and lathi charge” incidents were already underway and reiterated the State’s denial of any wrongdoing.
A counsel for another victim (item 62) aligned with Mr. Raghavachari, stating,
“I am the victim’s husband. None of the police officers were injured. We have the same prayer—to transfer the investigation to the CBI.”
With multiple counsels adopting similar submissions and all sides having been heard, Justice Maheshwari reserved the order.
Order Reserved.
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Stampede