In a significant development, the Supreme Court today set aside the Madras High Court’s order for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the tragic Karur stampede and directed a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation, to be monitored by a three-member committee headed by former Supreme Court Justice Ajay Rastogi.
The decision came on a batch of petitions, including one from actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), which challenged the Madras High Court’s direction for an SIT probe into the September 27 incident that claimed 41 lives.
A Bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and N V Anjaria pronounced the orders, expressing serious concerns over the “propriety” of the High Court’s proceedings.
A Supervised Investigation
Outlining the new investigative structure, the Bench stated, “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 setup a three-member committee. We have requested Justice Ajay Rastogi to head the committee.”
The committee will also include two Indian Police Service officers, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police (IGP), who may be from the Tamil Nadu cadre but must not be natives of the state. These officers will be chosen by Justice Rastogi. The Court directed that the “Committee shall devise its own procedure as per directions of the retired judge,” and the CBI must submit a monthly report of the investigation to the panel.
Supreme Court’s Scrutiny of High Court Orders
The Supreme Court’s ruling was underpinned by strong reservations about how the Madras High Court had handled the case. The Bench pointed out two key issues: jurisdictional overreach and a lack of propriety.
The Court noted that the Karur district falls under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Despite this, a single judge of the Principal Bench in Chennai, Justice N Senthilkumar, entertained the matter.
In its order, the Supreme Court stated, “Karur falls within the jurisdiction of Madurai bench and such being the case, there was no reason for single judge should have entertained.”
The Bench was particularly critical of Justice Senthilkumar’s October 3 order, which had directed the constitution of an SIT. The Supreme Court observed that the single judge took “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.”
Elaborating further, the order read, “the learned single judge did not have any occasion to entertain and take cognisance during pendency of the Madurai bench and ignoring Chief Minister which constituted an one-man single commission…the single judge while dealing with the matter, suo moto referred to SIT without referring to any materials. Such recourse ignores propriety.”
The Supreme Court also sought an explanation from the Madras High Court on a procedural matter, noting that the case before the Principal Judge bench was registered as a criminal writ petition. “Above is a matter of concern and requires to be explained by the High Court on how formation of the SoP for the political parties would fall within criminal jurisdiction,” the order stated. The Court has asked for an explanation from the Registrar General and directed that this order be brought to the notice of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Background of the Case
The stampede occurred on September 27 during a political rally of the TVK in Karur, where large crowds had gathered to see party founder Vijay. The High Court’s October 3 order had strongly criticized the TVK leadership for its conduct after the stampede and noted that the state police had not registered criminal cases in connection with two accidents involving Vijay’s bus amid the chaos.
TVK, in its appeal to the Supreme Court, argued that the High Court passed extensive observations against the party without hearing them, as the original petition was solely for formulating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for rallies. The Supreme Court has now directed that this plea for an SOP shall be assigned to a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
The State of Tamil Nadu was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P Wilson, while TVK’s legal team was led by Senior Advocates Gopal Subramaniam and Aryama Sundaram.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
