Karur stampede: SC questions Madras HC on forming SIT, reserves order

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed surprise over the Madras High Court’s decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the Karur stampede, which claimed 41 lives, asking how a single judge could have proceeded with the matter when it was already before a division bench.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria said it was “unable to understand” the high court’s order and questioned the procedural propriety behind it.

“We are unable to understand how this order was passed. How did the single bench in the Chennai Bench proceed with the matter when the division bench in Madurai was considering the matter?” Justice Maheshwari observed. “In my experience of over 15 years as a judge, a single bench holds back if the division bench has taken cognisance.”

The court made the remarks while hearing petitions related to the 27 September Karur tragedy, which occurred during a welfare distribution event organised by actor Vijay’s political outfit, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The stampede left 41 people dead and several others injured after thousands thronged the venue in sweltering heat to collect aid.

At the outset, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing TVK, told the bench that the petition filed before the high court was limited in scope. “The petition before the high court was filed only to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for political rallies,” he said, contending that the court “constituted an SIT on the very first day” and made adverse remarks against Vijay and his party “without hearing them”.

Senior advocate C.A. Sundaram, also appearing for TVK, said under normal practice, only the chief justice of the high court could authorise a special bench to take up such a matter — something that had not been done in this instance.

Both lawyers also challenged the high court’s observations that Vijay and his party members had abandoned the venue after the stampede and failed to express remorse. “The police themselves forced the actor to leave the place on the ground that his presence could aggravate the situation,” the lawyers told the apex court.

Appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi clarified that the SIT had been formed by the high court itself and that the state had not proposed any names. “The officers are known for their integrity and independence, and there was no reason to doubt them,” Rohatgi submitted.

The bench, after hearing all sides, reserved its order.

The court’s hearing came two days after a CJI-led bench agreed to hear a plea by BJP leader Uma Anandan challenging Madras High Court’s earlier refusal to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Another BJP leader from Tamil Nadu, G.S. Mani, has also sought a CBI probe, alleging procedural lapses and political interference.

Meanwhile, the TVK has urged the Supreme Court to order an independent probe under its supervision, arguing that a fair investigation “would not be possible if conducted solely by officers of the Tamil Nadu Police”.

Its plea objected to the composition of the SIT, which includes only state police officers, and alleged that the tragedy may have been the result of a “pre-planned conspiracy by some miscreants”.

The petition also took exception to the high court’s “scathing remarks” that Vijay and his party “abandoned the place after the incident and did not express remorse”.

According to Tamil Nadu Police, the event in Karur drew an estimated crowd of 27,000, nearly three times the expected turnout of 10,000. Preliminary inquiries suggested that prolonged crowding and poor management triggered panic when the gates were opened for distribution of relief materials.

Police sources had earlier claimed that a seven-hour delay in Vijay’s arrival at the venue contributed to the chaos, as restive crowds surged forward in the afternoon heat. The high court, taking suo motu cognisance of the incident, had ordered the formation of an SIT on the very first day of hearing and criticised TVK’s organisers for “gross negligence”.

The Supreme Court’s latest observations, however, signal that the procedural handling of the case by the high court — rather than the tragedy itself — is now under scrutiny.

With PTI inputs