Today, On 22nd January, Supreme Court has declined to issue nationwide Standard Operating Procedures for stampedes, saying it is not the judiciary’s role. The Court advised the petitioner to approach the Centre, adding that crowd management is best handled by experts and executive authorities.
The Supreme Court addressed a writ petition requesting nationwide directives to mitigate stampedes during political rallies and large gatherings.
However, the Court chose not to establish mandatory guidelines, stating that crowd management policies are best handled by executive authorities and specialists.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi, considered the petition put forth by AoR Rahul Shyam Bhandari. The petitioner pointed out what he termed as “preventable deaths” associated with stampedes throughout India.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Issues SOP for Timely Submission of Oral Arguments to Ensure Speedy Justice
Representing the petitioner, Advocates G Priyadharshni and Satyam Pathak emphasized that nearly 4,000 individuals have died in stampede-related incidents over the past two decades.
They identified the lack of a national policy, statutory standard operating procedures (SOPs), and even a legal definition of “stampede” as significant factors contributing to these recurring tragedies.
The Chief Justice, however, expressed skepticism about the practicality of enforceable judicial directions.
Warning against orders that could become “unmanageable” in practice, the Bench queried,
“Can we issue this kind of directions? Is it possible to comply with such directions?”
The Court highlighted the challenges by referencing political rallies. While authorities can restrict protests by designating specific locations and minimizing disruptions to public life, the Bench questioned whether courts could realistically limit attendance based on venue capacity.
The Chief Justice posed a critical question,
“If a ground can accommodate 10,000 people and 50,000 turn up, what do you do?”
In response, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that the request was not for strict attendance caps but for the establishment of minimum benchmarks via SOPs. They noted that while some states, like Tamil Nadu, have guidelines for political rallies, many do not.
Despite the concerns raised by the petitioner, the Bench remained doubtful about the feasibility of restricting participation in public events.
Nevertheless, the Chief Justice acknowledged that regulatory measures, such as designated protest spaces and crowd management to safeguard vulnerable groups like senior citizens, schoolchildren, and patients, are legitimate.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the reliefs sought amounts to a request for policy formulation, an area more suited to domain experts and law enforcement rather than judicial intervention. The Bench allowed the petitioner to approach the Union government with representations and submit the writ petition to the Election Commission of India.
By leaving the issue to the “competent authorities,” the Supreme Court refrained from issuing specific directives, while permitting the authorities to consider the provided suggestions and take necessary actions if deemed appropriate.
The petitioner, a former MLA, Union Cabinet Minister, Rajya Sabha MP, and ex-Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Transport, Tourism, and Culture, shared that his extensive public service and direct encounters with the aftermath of such events motivated the plea.
He recounted witnessing the chaos caused by the lack of crowd control, medical facilities, signage, trained personnel, and police oversight.
The petition emphasizes how unregulated rallies frequently disrupt civic life, blocking ambulances, delaying patients, preventing students from reaching their exams, and causing commuters to miss their flights and trains.
It argues that public roads, intended solely for transportation, are often “hijacked” for disorganized political events, with no accountability for the resultant inconveniences and hazards to the public.
Key requests in the PIL include the development of a National Crowd Management and Safety Code, mandatory pre-event registration and safety certification, rigorous venue audits, a ban on rallies on roads narrower than four lanes, and limitations on events to designated grounds and maidans.
It also seeks to enhance the supervisory authority of the Election Commission of India during pre-election and post-election periods, empowering them to cancel unsafe rallies and impose penalties on violators.
Case Title: Tumbalam Gooty Venkatesh v. Union of India