“40 Post-Mortems In 4 Hours?’” Supreme Court Slams DMK Govt Over Karur Stampede; Victims Seek CBI Probe
The Supreme Court on Friday (10 October 2025) reserved orders on a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the Karur stampede that occurred during actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) rally on 27 September 2025, claiming 41 lives.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter for over two hours and posed sharp questions to the Tamil Nadu government and the Madras High Court over the manner in which the case was handled and the investigation ordered.
Victims’ Lawyers Allege “Cover-Up”, Demand CBI Probe
Senior Advocate V. Raghavachari, appearing for one of the victims, accused the State police of mishandling the situation and concealing evidence.
“40 bodies post mortem was conducted in 4-5 hours late at night. What sort of material were they collecting? Post mortems are normally not conducted during night. And they are saying there’s a one man commission. CM announces it in the morning. A Sunday the notification was published. The State, if it had been fair enough, would have handed the case to the CBI. They say we want our own officers,” he submitted.
Raghavachari further alleged that the tragedy was not spontaneous, saying DMK members were heard predicting a tragedy hours before the incident.
“Even before the meeting took place, DMK members, at about 3 PM, were saying that a tragedy was going to take place,” he said.
He claimed that police allowed a miscreant to throw a shoe into the crowd, triggering panic and a lathicharge.
“The stampede was not spontaneous, as the police allowed a miscreant to throw a shoe into the crowd, which led to police lathicharge,” he alleged.
He also questioned why the AIADMK was denied permission to hold a rally at the same spot on safety grounds while TVK was allowed to proceed.
“When another political party, AIADMK, had sought permission for rally in the same spot, it was denied, saying that it was a narrow area. However, authorities granted permission to Vijay’s rally,” Raghavachari said.
Supreme Court Questions Tamil Nadu Govt: “Why Was Permission Granted?”
The bench posed a series of pointed questions to the State’s counsel, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, regarding the permission granted for the rally and the manner in which the post-mortems were conducted.
“Why was permission granted when there was an order [to not give permission until SOP is finalised]?” Justice Maheshwari asked.
He also questioned the post-mortem process, expressing disbelief at the speed and timing.
“You conducted postmortem in four hours at midnight? How many postmortem tables are there? Two?” Justice Maheshwari asked.
Wilson replied that families were pleading for the bodies to be released and that doctors from nearby districts were brought in.
He said the Collector permitted conducting autopsies at night and undertook to file an affidavit addressing the bench’s queries.
Wilson also denied allegations that a shoe was thrown deliberately to create panic.
“We Are Unable to Understand How This Order Was Passed”: SC Questions Madras HC SIT
The bench also scrutinized the Madras High Court’s October 3 order, which constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) made up entirely of Tamil Nadu Police officers to probe the tragedy.
Addressing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the State, Justice Maheshwari said, “We are unable to understand how this order was passed? In my experience of over 15 years as a judge, a single bench holds back if the division bench has taken cognizance.”
He noted that the High Court ordered an SIT probe in a petition that only sought a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for political rallies.
“I am unable to understand, Chennai court, they are not looking at the prayer which is given. Something has to be done about propriety. Here in this case, the prayer is different and the court considers different prayers,” Justice Maheshwari said.
The bench also questioned why the principal bench in Chennai passed orders when Karur falls under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench.
Victims, TVK Both Seek Independent Probe
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, for TVK, submitted that the High Court’s adverse observations against Vijay and TVK were made without hearing them.
“The High Court’s observations that TVK and Vijay abandoned the place and that they did not express remorse were wrong,” he said, adding that Vijay was forced to leave by police to avoid escalation.
Senior Advocate C.A. Sundaram, also for TVK, said, “To have an SIT with the officers only of the State, we have a problem. Let there be a fair investigation. We are wary of the State. All we want is an impartial investigation. Let a retired judge of the Supreme Court preside over it, we have no problem.”
Bench Reserves Order
After hearing all sides — including petitions from victims and TVK seeking a CBI or independent probe monitored by a retired Supreme Court judge — the bench reserved its order.
“We will see what orders we can pass. Order reserved,” Justice Maheshwari said.
The case has brought renewed scrutiny over the Tamil Nadu government’s handling of the Karur stampede, with the Supreme Court openly questioning both the Madras High Court’s process and the State’s role in granting permission and conducting hurried post-mortems.
(With inputs from Live Law)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
