The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Madras High Court decision striking down a Tamil Nadu government order of compassionate appointments to the families of 41 people who died in the Karur stampede last September, observing that a policy decision by the State to provide succour to victims of an unfortunate tragedy should not be interfered with lightly.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran issued notice on the state government’s plea challenging the high court judgment and ordered that its decision “shall remain stayed”.
During the proceedings, the bench questioned the basis for challenging the State’s decision to provide employment to the bereaved families.
“Stampede took place. Unfortunate incident happened. The government has decided to compensate them. Should government not give employment?” asked the bench.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state government, submitted that the state had taken the decision as a policy measure under Article 162 of the Constitution. “If the state wants to give out (compassionate appointment) out of killings as a policy decision under Article 162, how can the high court interfere?” he asked, pointing out that the government circular itself had not been challenged.
Singhvi also questioned the maintainability of a PIL seeking to interfere with employment decisions.
{{/usCountry}}Singhvi also questioned the maintainability of a PIL seeking to interfere with employment decisions.
{{/usCountry}}The intervention by the Supreme Court comes against the backdrop of the high court’s finding that the state could not create a special category of beneficiaries for public employment outside the existing framework governing compassionate appointments.
The high court had held that public employment had to conform to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and warned that allowing the State to make such appointments on the basis of a particular tragedy could open the “floodgates” to similar claims arising from other unfortunate incidents.
On Friday, however, the bench questioned why the state could not provide employment as part of its policy to rehabilitate families that had lost their sole earning members.
“A stampede took place, something very unfortunate happened, some hundreds of people died. Now if the government decided that the family members should be provided with some succour, and suppose they would have decided to compensate them with money, would you have objected?” the bench asked the lawyer appearing for the PIL petitioner in the high court.
“Suppose if the sole earning member has died in the stampede and there is nobody else in the family who is earning, shouldn’t the government give some employment to son or daughter or wife as per their educational qualifications?” it added.
At one point, a lawyer representing a political party opposed the appointments, arguing that compassionate appointment could not be left to the discretion of the state and alleging a conflict of interest since the party allegedly responsible for the stampede was now in power in Tamil Nadu.
But the bench questioned the lawyer’s role in the matter, asking: “Who are you representing?” When told that he appeared for a political party, the judge asked, “What is the role of a political party here? Don’t bring politics here.”
The high court had, while quashing the government order, noted that several thousand persons eligible for compassionate appointments under the existing scheme were already awaiting employment. The State could not overlook their claims and create a separate class of beneficiaries through an executive order, it had held.
The high court had also said that public employment could not become a form of compensation outside the constitutional framework, while suggesting that the government could instead consider technical education, skill development and entrepreneurship programmes for members of the affected families.
The state, however, had defended the decision as an “exceptional measure” under Article 162, arguing that the victims constituted a distinct class requiring rehabilitation beyond monetary compensation. It had said the appointments were limited to entry-level posts intended to provide long-term financial security to the bereaved families.
The petitions before the high court had challenged the government’s decision to provide jobs to the kin of the 41 victims of the September 2025 stampede at a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) rally in Karur. The tragedy is currently being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The state decided to offer employment to the victims’ families after the TVK, led by chief minister C Joseph Vijay, came to power following the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections in April 2026.