The Karnataka high court has directed the state government to make public its status report on the June 4 stampede at the M Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru that killed 11 people. It rejected the state’s plea to keep the report under wraps, underlining the case involved no grounds such as “national security, privacy, or overriding public interest” which could justify the secrecy being insisted upon.
In an order passed last week and released on Monday, a bench of Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice CM Joshi rejected the state’s argument that the magisterial inquiry or judicial commission might be influenced if its internal status report was shared. It cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgement in the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs Union of India and ruled that the state’s reasoning does not justify secrecy and undermines transparency and fairness, especially given that innocent citizens died in the stampede and thus, “accountability” was critical.
“These proceedings have been initiated suo motu by this court to know the reasons that led to the tragedy; whether it could have been prevented, and what measures to be taken to prevent such tragedies in the future. The finding on those issues has to be based on a factual foundation. Moreover, we are of the view that if the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can assist the court to understand the facts from a better perspective, including the reasons which led to the incident, and also, it could have been prevented. It shall also signify a fair chance being given to the parties to narrate the happening of events on 04.06.2025 [June 6] as per their perspective,” the court said. It added that withholding the report would be unfair to all parties to the case.
The June 4 stampede ahead of Indian Premier League franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB)’s victory celebration prompted the high court to initiate suo motu proceedings into the case on June 5. The court posed nine questions to the state government, including who authorised the event, how crowd control and emergency care were handled, and whether any prior assessment was made of the expected turnout. The state has maintained that RCB was solely responsible for the large crowd at the stadium and the consequent stampede. It filed its response to the court’s questions in a sealed envelope, claiming its answers contained sensitive information and could “prejudice some third parties.”
{{/usCountry}}The June 4 stampede ahead of Indian Premier League franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB)’s victory celebration prompted the high court to initiate suo motu proceedings into the case on June 5. The court posed nine questions to the state government, including who authorised the event, how crowd control and emergency care were handled, and whether any prior assessment was made of the expected turnout. The state has maintained that RCB was solely responsible for the large crowd at the stadium and the consequent stampede. It filed its response to the court’s questions in a sealed envelope, claiming its answers contained sensitive information and could “prejudice some third parties.”
{{/usCountry}}The court initially permitted the sealed cover, but members of the Bar and private individuals, impleaded as parties to the suo motu petition, said that the state’s findings should be made public. The court-appointed amicus curiae, senior counsel S Susheela, too, advocated for the report to be made public.
The proponents of making the report public argued that in normal circumstances, in a criminal case, an accused receives relevant documents only after a magistrate takes cognisance, but the present case was different. The first information report in the case arose from suo motu court proceedings. The general principle is that anything that the court can see, the opposing party must be allowed to see, the proponents argued.
The state argued that the report must be in a sealed cover to prevent any undue influence on the ongoing magisterial inquiry or judicial commission.
Advocate general Sashikiran Shetty said that the state was not treating the suo motu case as adversarial litigation and that it was not seeking permanent confidentiality, but only a temporary delay in disclosure until the ongoing inquiries were completed.
The court rejected the argument. It said that any “departure from procedural fairness must be tested against the standard of proportionality.” The court added that if withholding documents would make the matter “non-justiciable, because the documents are central” to the case, it can order disclosure.
“Having noted the position of law, it must be stated that, in the facts of this case, the plea of Sri Shetty and Sri Holla [for the state government] does not appeal to the court. ...we say so because the law governing the sealed cover is no more res integra in view of the judgments referred to above, and the same will not help the plea advanced by Sri Shetty and Sri Holla. This we say so because the case in hand does not fall in three categories where sealed cover can be adopted ie only when it is a case which involves public interest or national security or privacy rights,” the court said.
The high court will hear the matter next on Wednesday.