Supreme Court orders CBI probe into Karur stampede, says incident 'deserves fair investigation'

A committee headed by former SC judge Ajay Rastogi will monitor the CBI probe.

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the September 27 stampede in Tamil Nadu’s Karur, when 41 people died during a rally by actor Vijay’s political party Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK).

The Karur stampede site where 41 people were killed at a political rally last month. (ANI)(HT_PRINT)

Stressing that an independent investigation was essential “to allay concerns and ensure impartiality,” a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and NV Anjaria also set up a three-member monitoring committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi, along with two IPS officers from the Tamil Nadu cadre who are not natives of the state, to monitor the CBI probe.

“Looking at the facts, the issue has a bearing on the fundamental rights of the citizens. The directions are to handover the investigation to the CBI. In order to allay the concern of parties we propose to set up a three member committee. We have requested justice Ajay Rastogi to head the committee,” the Court said.

The Committee will frame its own procedure under Justice Rastogi’s directions, the Court said. It also directed the CBI to submit monthly progress reports of its investigation before the Committee.

The Court also came down heavily on the Madras High Court’s handling of the matter, questioning the propriety of a single judge who had taken suo motu cognisance of the incident and ordered an SIT probe without making TVK a party to the case and despite the incident falling under the Madurai bench’s territorial jurisdiction, which had already refused to interfere with the ongoing investigation into the stampede at the time.

The Supreme Court said the High Court’s order “lacked sensitivity and propriety,” and noted that the decision of the single judge, Justice N Senthilkumar, had created “multiplicity of proceedings.”

It said the single judge had no occasion to entertain or take cognisance of the Karur stampede during the pendency of related proceedings before the Madurai Bench, which had territorial jurisdiction over the incident. Justice Senthilkumar’s decision to constitute an SIT suo motu, without referring to any materials or making TVK a party, raised serious concerns about judicial discipline, the Supreme Court said.

“The learned single judge made some observations about Karur stampede in which TVK was not made a party and as a result, the court suo moto cognisance and directed constitution of SIT- judgment completely silent on how the single judge arrived at conclusion....in above two writ petition entertained prayers and extended scope which was not before it. Karur falls within the jurisdiction of Madurai bench and such being the case, there was no reason for (a) single judge to have entertained,” it said.

The Court further said that Justice Senthilkumar’s approach had “extended the scope of the petitions far beyond what was before it.” It also said that the Madras high court judgment was “completely silent” on how the single judge arrived at his conclusions, and why he ignored the fact that the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin had already constituted a one-man commission of inquiry to probe the stampede.

On October 3, a single-judge bench of justice N Senthilkumar, at the principal seat of the High Court in Chennai, had termed the Karur stampede a “huge man-made disaster” and said it could not remain a “mute spectator.” Though justice Senthilkumar was hearing a PIL seeking SoPs for political rallies, he had gone on to order a SIT, headed by an IPS officer, to probe the incident, while criticising Vijay and his political party, as well as the state police for their handling of the tragedy.

However, earlier that day, a two-judge bench at Madurai had declined to order a CBI or court-monitored probe, noting that the state had appointed a judicial commission and the investigation was still at a nascent stage.

The Supreme Court said it had “seriously observed the functioning of the High Court” in this matter and would take cognisance if procedural lapses were found. It sought an explanation from the Registrar General of the Madras High Court on how the case came to be listed as a criminal petition and why the writ petition seeking the SoPs was not treated as a PIL.

It directed the High Court Registry to now place the writ asking for the SoPs before a two-judge bench for further hearing.

The Apex Court issued the present directions on a batch of petitions, including one filed by the TVK through its general secretary Aadhav Arjuna, challenging the formation of the SIT and the adverse remarks made against its party and leaders.