SC says ‘something is wrong’ in Madras HC handling of Karur stampede case
A bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi made the remark after examining a report submitted by the registrar general of the Madras High Court.
The Supreme Court on Thursday sharpened its scrutiny of the Madras High Court’s role in the aftermath of the Karur stampede, observing that “something is wrong” in the manner the high court dealt with proceedings related to the tragedy that claimed 41 lives during a political outreach event of actor-turned-politician Vijay’s Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK).
Track updates on IndiGo crisis here
A bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi made the remark after examining a report submitted by the registrar general of the Madras HC, which the apex court had sought in October while questioning how the case was handled by the HC’s Chennai Bench despite Karur falling under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench.
The report was ordered to be circulated among the parties, with the bench calling for their responses.
Also read: Mercedes to hike vehicle prices by up to 2% from January as Rupee slips against Euro
Going through the registrar general’s explanation, the bench commented: “Something wrong is going on in the high court. This is not a right thing that is happening in the high court…the registrar general has sent a report.”
The Supreme Court had previously raised several doubts, including why the Chennai Bench intervened in a matter arising from Karur; how it constituted a special investigation team (SIT) made up entirely of Tamil Nadu police officers in a petition that merely sought guidelines for political rallies; and why conflicting orders arose from the high court’s two benches, with the Madurai Bench refusing to transfer the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the same day.
Also read: 'Ready to find solution': Kiren Rijiju opens door to pollution debate after Rahul Gandhi's request
Senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, told the court, “In our high court, whatever is incidental to the issue coming before the court, they pass an order…”. To this, Justice Maheshwari responded, “If some practice is wrong…”
The bench also turned down an oral request to modify a part of its October 13 order, which had directed that the CBI probe be supervised by a three-member committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Ajay Rastogi. The order requires justice Rastogi to pick two senior IPS officers from the Tamil Nadu cadre who are not natives of the state.
The court refused to reconsider the phrase “non-native,” which had triggered political outrage in Tamil Nadu and formed a key grievance in the state government’s affidavit.
Also read: Shashi Tharoor absent from Congress meeting, third instance in a row as ties stay frosty
Wilson also mentioned the stay on the state-appointed Commission of Inquiry chaired by justice Aruna Jagadeesan, saying it would not interfere with the CBI probe and would only make future recommendations. The bench neither vacated the stay nor issued notice.
The Tamil Nadu government had last week filed an affidavit accusing the Supreme Court of violating principles of natural justice by transferring the investigation to the CBI before the state could file its counter.
Calling the October 13 order an instance of “adjudication without pleadings,” the state argued that it was denied a fair chance to place on record critical factual material, such as permissions, crowd-control plans, National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) compliance and safety assessments. The state pointed out that the petition filed by TVK did not seek a CBI probe nor challenge the HC’s SIT.
Also read: Panic after private schools in Amritsar get bomb threat emails; holiday declared
“Therefore, transfer of investigation from SIT to CBI deserves to be set aside as the petitioner has neither sought nor pleaded for such relief,” it said, adding that an accused person — in this case TVK general secretary Aadhav Arjuna — cannot select the agency investigating him.
Rebutting the Supreme Court’s direction that the supervisory committee include two IPS officers “not native to Tamil Nadu,” the affidavit said the distinction is “ex facie unconstitutional” and violates Articles 14 and 15 by presuming officers born in the state are inherently biased.
The remark had also drawn protest inside the Tamil Nadu assembly on October 15, with chief minister MK Stalin assuring that the government would “seek appropriate orders” from the apex court.
Also read: Will your in-hand salary reduce under new labour codes? Centre's big clarification
The affidavit urged the Supreme Court to restore the high court-supervised SIT led by senior IPS officer Asra Garg and permit the justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission to resume its work.
The apex court’s October 13 direction for a CBI probe came while hearing petitions filed by TVK and others challenging the HC (Chennai Bench)’s October 3 order forming an SIT consisting exclusively of Tamil Nadu police officers and the Madurai Bench’s refusal to transfer the case to the CBI.
The Supreme Court noted that the political context of the case and statements by senior state police officers to the media could cast doubts on the impartiality of the investigation.
