Messi event fiasco: Calcutta High Court refuses to interfere in SIT probe

The Calcutta High Court on Monday declined to intervene in the ongoing probe by a special investigation team (SIT) into the chaos that marred the Argentine football legend Lionel Messi’s much-anticipated event at Salt Lake Stadium on 13 December.

A division bench, headed by acting chief justice Sujoy Paul and accompanied by justice Partha Sarathi Sen, observed that the investigation is still in its preliminary stages. The court noted that no material had been presented to demonstrate that the enquiry had been “vitiated or polluted”, and thus it was not inclined to stay or transfer the probe at this juncture.

The three public interest litigations (PILs) before the bench had sought two key forms of relief: a transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and a refund of ticket prices for spectators, some of whom had erupted in frustration when their view of Messi was obstructed and the event concluded abruptly amid chaos. Witnesses reported that some attendees jostled around Messi, blocking the view of those in the stands, prompting panic and disorder.

Rejecting the interim relief sought, the court emphasised that investigations cannot be transferred to central agencies merely on demand or because allegations have been levelled. Such extraordinary directions, the bench noted, are only warranted in rare cases where it can be established with precision that an enquiry is flawed or compromised.

The high court directed the West Bengal government and the event organisers to file affidavits addressing the petitioners’ contentions within four weeks, after which the petitioners will have two weeks to respond. The bench announced that the PILs will next be heard during the week commencing 16 February.

Representing the state, counsel argued that the tickets had not been sold by the government and that the event was privately organised. He assured the court that the SIT was conducting the investigation with diligence and noted that the state’s director general of police (DGP) had already been issued a show-cause notice over the incident.

The owner of the event management company, Satadru Dutta, who was arrested in connection with the fiasco, told the court that organisers were unaware how the crowd had surged around Messi, blocking spectators’ views, as the police managed entry points. Dutta’s lawyer pointed out that similar events in Hyderabad, Mumbai, and Delhi had proceeded smoothly without incident.

Petitioners raised concerns over the source of funds for the event and questioned the adequacy of the state-formed enquiry committee, noting that it was administrative rather than judicial in nature. The court acknowledged that the state had issued a gazette notification establishing the committee, which comprises a retired high court judge and senior administrative officers.

The high court’s observations underline the principle that preliminary investigations should be allowed to proceed without interference, while the legal process meticulously addresses concerns raised by petitioners, leaving room for thorough scrutiny in the weeks ahead.

With PTI inputs