E-Paper
‘Servants of RCB’: What Karnataka government told court on Bengaluru stampede
Karnataka government argued that the failure to question the event's lack of senior-level consultation amounted to a serious dereliction of duty.
The Karnataka government on Thursday defended its decision to suspend IPS officer Vikash Kumar Vikash, telling the High Court that the officer and his team behaved as if they were “servants of RCB” during preparations for the IPL victory celebration, which ended in a stampede that killed 11 people and injured 33.
Appearing for the state, senior counsel PS Rajagopal said Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) had submitted a proposal for their victory celebrations even before the final IPL match was played.
Instead of seeking mandatory authorisation for such a massive public event, the officers began arranging security without consulting their seniors or securing the required permissions, he added.
“The most obvious response from the IPS officer should have been: You haven’t taken permission,” PTI quoted Rajagopal as saying in the court.
“Then, RCB would have had to approach the high court, and the law would have taken its own course,” he added.
He argued that the failure to question the event's legality and the lack of senior-level consultation amounted to a serious dereliction of duty. “No senior-level consultation took place, and the officers were merely placed under interim suspension to prevent further damage,” Rajagopal said.
Referring to the logistical impracticality of handling such a large crowd in less than 12 hours, he questioned what proactive steps the suspended officer had taken during that period.
He then cited Section 35 of the Karnataka State Police Act to point out that police had sufficient powers to act but failed to do so.
When the Bench of Justices SG Pundit and TM Nadaf asked who oversaw security inside the stadium, Rajagopal said it was the state police and admitted that arrangements were “clearly inadequate.”
Rajagopal also criticised the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for quashing the suspension. He took issue with the Tribunal’s sympathetic remarks about the police’s limitations, reading from its order: “Police personnel are also human beings, not God or magicians.” Rajagopal dismissed it as “an inappropriate narrative more suited for storytelling by grandparents,” adding, “This is not what litigants expect from a judicial forum.”
The state’s submissions were made in a petition challenging the CAT’s July 1 order reinstating Vikash with full pay and allowances. The Tribunal had found no convincing evidence of negligence and said the police had little time to act after RCB made a sudden announcement on social media.
It also observed that managing a crowd of 3 to 5 lakh people required far more planning than was possible in the available time.
Despite acknowledging that RCB’s announcement triggered the crowd, the Tribunal concluded that the police “could not be expected to perform miracles.”
On July 2, advocate general Shashi Kiran Shetty told the High Court that Vikash had resumed duty in uniform. The court refused to stay the CAT’s order and listed the matter for further hearing the next day.
On July 3, the division bench orally questioned the necessity of suspension and suggested that a departmental shift might have sufficed. The AG defended the suspension as being backed by records and pressed for a stay.
Vikash's counsel, senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, assured the court that no contempt proceedings would be initiated. The Bench, in turn, urged both sides to avoid precipitative action until the issue is resolved.
Vikash is the only one among five suspended officers to challenge the action before the Tribunal. The others include Bengaluru Police Commissioner B Dayananda, DCP Shekar H Tekkannavar, ACP C Balakrishna, and inspector AK Girish.
With PTI inputs
