In a nose cut to the DMK, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, 7 July 2026, refused to entertain an application filed by the General Secretary of the party seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, TVK Minister Aadhav Arjuna, and other persons named in the application from making public statements relating to the Karur stampede case, which is currently under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The application also sought directions regulating the Chief Minister’s interaction with the families of the victims during the pendency of the probe, as reported in LiveLaw.
A partial Court working days bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe expressed its disinclination to entertain the application. Following the Court’s observations, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the DMK General Secretary, sought permission to withdraw the plea.
Allowing the request, the bench dismissed the application as withdrawn while granting liberty to the applicant to pursue other remedies available under law.
“Heard Mr Ranjith Kumar for applicant. He seeks to withdraw this appln. to pursue such other remedies as may be applicable to applicant. Dismissed as withdrawn on the above terms,” the bench recorded in its order.
The application was filed in the proceedings in which the Supreme Court had last year directed that the Karur stampede investigation be transferred to the CBI. It was mentioned urgently ahead of Chief Minister Joseph Vijay’s proposed meeting with the families of the stampede victims on July 10, during which the State government is scheduled to distribute ₹10 lakh ex gratia compensation and compassionate appointment orders.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar submitted that ministers belonging to the ruling party were making public statements that were creating a “narrative” regarding the stampede case. He argued that such statements were contrary to the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment transferring the investigation to the CBI.
Justice Viswanathan responded by asking, “You want the Chief Minister’s visit to be regulated by the Supreme Court and fix his itinerary?”
Kumar clarified that the applicant was not objecting to the payment of compensation or welfare measures for the victims but was seeking restraint on public comments by the Chief Minister and other ministers regarding the merits of the case.
Justice Viswanathan then remarked, “So you want us to impose an injunction on speech? You counter their speech with your speech. How can a political rival implead themselves in a matter where the Supreme Court has transferred the matter to the CBI.”
The bench also questioned how the proposed distribution of ₹10 lakh ex gratia compensation and compassionate appointment orders to the victims’ families would affect the ongoing CBI investigation.
Kumar argued that Joseph Vijay was both the head of the political executive and the first accused in the matter. Justice Viswanathan immediately corrected the submission, observing that the Chief Minister had not been named as an accused in the FIR.
“The Chief Minister is not an accused in the FIRs registered…today, to make this court a political fora…how is that possible?” Justice Viswanathan asked.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the respondents, also informed the Court that the Chief Minister was not an accused in the case.
Observing that the bench was not inclined to entertain the plea, Justice Viswanathan advised the applicant to withdraw the application.
Ranjit Kumar then requested that liberty be granted to approach the committee headed by retired Justice Ajay Rastogi, which was constituted by the Supreme Court to monitor the investigation. He also informed the Court that a separate application was proposed to initiate contempt proceedings against Tamil Nadu Minister Aadhav Arjuna over certain public remarks made by him regarding the case.
The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the application as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to avail such remedies as may be available under law.
Details Of The Application
In the application, the DMK General Secretary clarified that there was no objection to the State extending ex gratia compensation or other welfare measures to the victims’ families. However, it was argued that the victims’ families were also material witnesses in the CBI investigation and that direct interaction with them by persons connected with the subject matter of the investigation or members of the political executive could create a reasonable apprehension regarding the fairness of the probe.
The application also pointed out that Joseph Vijay had previously distributed ₹20 lakh each to the families of those who died in the stampede and ₹2 lakh each to injured victims in October 2025 while criminal proceedings were pending. It contended that this, when viewed together with the proposed distribution of government benefits after assuming office and the public statements made by an accused minister, warranted judicial safeguards to preserve the integrity of the investigation.
Another grievance raised in the application related to a public statement allegedly made by Tamil Nadu Minister Aadhav Arjuna on 2 July 2026. Referring to the Minister’s remarks that there was “a score to settle” over the Karur incident and his allegation that the previous DMK government had “killed Karur people through the police,” the applicant argued that such statements were intended to influence the ongoing Court-monitored investigation.
The application alleged that an accused holding public office “cannot set a narrative especially when the investigation is going on” and contended that the Minister’s speech was calculated to prejudice the investigation and shape public perception regarding responsibility for the incident. It further stated that a separate contempt petition was proposed against the Minister.
Among the reliefs sought, the applicant requested directions restraining Chief Minister Joseph Vijay, Aadhav Arjuna, Bussy Anand, CTR Nirmal Kumar, and other persons named in the application from making public statements attributing criminal liability or commenting on the merits of the pending investigation.
The application also sought a direction that government benefits to the victims’ families be distributed only in accordance with safeguards approved by the Supreme Court and after placing the proposed course of action before the CBI so that the evidence of material witnesses is not affected.
Additionally, the applicant sought a direction to the CBI to initiate proceedings against Aadhav Arjuna over his July 2 statement, alleging that it amounted to influencing witnesses and impeding the ongoing investigation.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
