No cbi karur MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W. P.(MD)Nos.27556, 27563 and 27571 of 2025and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.21447, 21448, 21468 & 21469 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.27556 of 2025 K.K. Ramesh … Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Union of India,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W. P.(MD)Nos.27556, 27563 and 27571 of 2025and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.21447, 21448, 21468 & 21469 of 2025
W.P.(MD)No.27556 of 2025
K.K. Ramesh … Petitioner
-Vs-
- 1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Home Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Election Commissioner,
Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
4. The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishna Salai, Chennai.
5. The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.
7. The President,
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)
Headquarters 275, Seashore Town, 8th Avenue,
Panaiyur, East Coast Road, Chennai 600 119.
8. The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
Head Quarters No.5-B, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. … Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing 1st respondent to take strict action against the respondents 3 and 4 to
A. To direct the 3 and 4 respondents to order the 8 respondent to conduct Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enquiry to find the truth behind At least 39 people died in a stampede at a Tamil Nadu Karur District Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party rally. More than 80 were injured on Saturday (September 27,2025).
B. To pay Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) as compensation to find the truth behind At least 39 people died in a Stampede at a Tamil Nadu Karur District Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) Party rally. More than 80 were injured on Saturday (September 27, 2025).
C. To pay Rs.10 lakh compensation to those injured in the stampede and undergoing treatment in hospitals. (September 27, 2025).
D. By considering the petitioner’s representation dated 28.09.2025, and pass such furtheror other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Ramesh (Party-in-Person)
For R-3 : Mr.N.R.Elango, Special Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader
For R-4 & R-6 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General -II
Assisted by Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-1 : Mr.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy,
Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government
W.P.(MD)No.27563 of 2025
M.L.Ravi
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Central Bureau of Investigation,
Plot No.5-B, CGOComplex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
3. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
4. The Superintendent of Police
Collector Office Campus,
Thandoni, Karur – 639 007.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
… Petitioner
Karur-639 001.
… Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent in appointing the 2nd respondent to investigate, enquire and punish in the Road Show meet held by the TamizhagaVetriKhazagam actor turned Politician Vijay, at Velusamypuram, Karur
District on 26th September 2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan
For R-1 : Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader
For R-3 to R-5 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General – II, Assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader
W.P.(MD)No.27571 of 2025
G.S.Mani … Petitioner
Vs.
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Home Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Director General of Police,
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District,
Near Collector Office, Karur-639 007.
5. The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur – 639 007.
6. Government of India,
Represented by its Home Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs Room No. 113, North Block, New Delhi – 110001.
7. The Director – General
Central Bureau of Investigation
Lodhi Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi – 110 003.
8. The Joint Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation
Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
9. Thiru.Vijay Joseph Alias Vijay,
S/o, S.A. Chandrasekhar, R/o, No. 64, Casuarina Drive,
Neelankarai, Chennai-600 115.
10. Thiru N.Anand Alias Bussy Anand, General Secretary, TVK Party,
Headquarters, 275, Seashore Town,
8th Avenue, Panaiyur,
East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 119.
11. Thiru.Mathiyalagan,
Karur District Secretary, TVK Party,
Headquarters, 275, Seashore Town,
8th Avenue, Panaiyur,
East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 119.
12. Thiru.CTR Nirmalkumar,
State Joint Secretary, TVK Party.
Headquarters, 275, Seashore Town,
8th Avenue, Panaiyur,
East Coast Road,
Chennai-600 119. … Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 5th Respondents to transfer the investigation in FIR in Crime No. 855 of 2025 registered at Karur Town Police Station concerning the stampede death of 41 persons in the public meeting of Actor Vijay at Karur on 27.09.2025 to 7th and 8th Respondents Central Bureau of Investigation CBI or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired/sitting Judges of the Honble Supreme
Court of India.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Shyllappakalyan
For R-2 : Mr.N.R.Elango, Special Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader
For R-3, R4 & R5 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General – II,
Assisted by Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R1 : Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
[Common Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI,J.]
These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation along with a prayer for payment of adequate compensation.
2.Learned AGP/Government Advocate takes notice for the official
respondents. As no adverse order is being passed against the private respondents, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.
3.It is the case of the petitioners that they are public minded citizens who have
filed the writ petitions upon coming to know of the incident of stampede at Karur District in Velusamypuram, Karur – Erode Highway, which was attended by thousands of people in which the lives of 41 people were robbed, which included even tender aged children and in which many persons were also grievously injured, who had gathered for the political meeting conducted by Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam.
4.The grievance of the petitioners is that the State, also being an interested
party to the entire occurrence, as the law enforcing agency of the State had given permission for the conduct of the meeting at the said place by the political partyviz., Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam, the petitioners apprehend that the State Police may not do their duty properly in investigating the matter, which had led to the stampede and the consequential death, which would also stand reflected from the fact that upon an enquiry commission being appointed, during the press briefing, the police personnel had interfered in the press meet by showing signals as to how the answer should be given to the queries. Therefore, for better investigation and in public interest, the investigation should be handed over to a central agency so as to find out the real perpetrators of the crime.
5.In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance was placed on the decision
of the Apex Court in Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India and Ors reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 1345.
6.Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that the petitioners, though have sought for investigation by the central agency, however, have not attributed any mala fide to the investigation done by the State Agency and further submitted that in the absence of any allegations raised against the law enforcing agency of the State or the State Government, it would not be interest of the State to transfer the investigation to a central agency, as any such order would erode the public confidence and trust reposed by the public on the State and, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the present writ petitions.
7.Before proceeding to render any decision on the plea canvassed by the
petitioners, it would be useful to refer to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vinay Agarwal – Vs – The State of Haryana & Ors. (SLP (Crl.) No.8403/2024
– Dated 02.04.2025), wherein the Apex Court has held as under :-
“7. We are only on the issue of handing over the
investigation to the CBI. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, a FiveJudge Bench of this Court held that Constitutional Courts are fully empowered to direct for CBI investigation, and restrictions under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 do not apply to Constitutional Courts. However, this Court had also observed that CBI investigation should not be directed in a routine manner or just because some allegations have been made against the local police. Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in exceptional cases. This is what was said by this Court:
“70. … Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
8. The parameters laid down by this Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (Supra) are not fulfilled in the present case so as to exercise the extraordinary powers of directing CBI investigation. Moreover, in our opinion, High Court was perhaps moved by the assertions made by the complainant that local police officers who will do the investigation are of lesser ranks and that the matter involves some high ranking officials and thus, local police will not be able to investigate the matter properly. However, these allegations are vague and moreover, the Commissioner, Panchkula had constituted a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Chairmanship of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) for the investigation. One should also take note that the allegations are not against some high ranking IPS officer but against a person who was allegedly impersonating himself as an IPS officer. The complainant has raised some allegations that high ranking police officials of Haryana Police are in connivance with the appellant, but such bald allegations are not sufficient to handover the case to CBI, without any kind of substantiation.
1. The High Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in cases where material prima facie discloses something calling for an investigation by CBI and it should not be done in a routine manner or on the basis of some vague allegations. The “ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion [See: Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P.
v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521]. After going through the records of the case, we are of the view that the present case is not the one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the High Court.”
2.
8.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors.
(MANU/SC/0121/2010) a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that Constitutional Courts are fully empowered to direct for CBI investigation and restrictions under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 do not apply to Constitutional Courts. However, it has been observed that CBI investigation should not be directed as a matter of routine, but it should be based on some substantiated allegations against the State machinery or the local police, which alone could weigh before the Courts to order a CBI investigation. In the said context, the Apex Court held as under :-
“46. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary
to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
47. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Ors. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr. MANU/SC/0441/2002 : (2002) 5 SCC 521, this Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations.”
9.This Court is mindful of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in a catena
of decisions, including the decisions referred supra, which clearly lays down the circumstances in which investigation should be directed by a central agency.
10.Admittedly, in the present case, the incident had happened only a week
back and investigation has just commenced. It is to be pointed out that the petitioners are not the victims in the case, but they claim themselves to be public spirited citizens, who want to espouse the cause of justice, who have come before this Court. The investigation is at a nascent stage and further it is to be pointed out that no allegations have been raised either with regard to the manner of investigation or the interference, if any by the State Government or its machinery. Just for asking, the present petition seems to have been filed seeking a probe by the central agency under the pretext that the law enforcing agency, which comes under the aegis of the State Government would not be conducting proper investigation.
11.It is to be pointed that sweeping allegation of the above nature cannot be
made and without any tangible material, it would be wholly erroneous for this court to take the word of the petitioners to hold that investigation by a central agency is required. The investigation has to be allowed to proceed and only if any fallacy is found in the investigation, then the victims or public spirited citizens could knock on the doors of this court and not at this point of time. Therefore, this Court, in the absence of any allegations, is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioners for transfer of investigation to a central agency.
12.Insofar the plea for enhanced compensation is concerned, as pointed out
above, the investigation has not pointed finger on any political party or individual or even the State Government for that matter as the reason for the stampede, in which more than 40 lives have been lost and very many persons have been injured. In this scenario, this Court cannot give any direction for enhanced compensation by any political party or the State Government unless the guilt is fastened on a particular entity. Therefore, the plea for enhanced compensation cannot be considered, though it is to be pointed out that while the State Government had already announced a compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs to each of the victim’s family, the Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam has announced a compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs to each of the victim’s family and a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs to the persons who have sustained injures in the stampede. Subject to the outcome of the investigation, it is open to the victims to seek for remedy for enhanced compensation from such of those entities in the manner known to law, including the claim for compensation if not paid either by the State Government or the Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam, as announced. At this point of time this Court cannot exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to give any direction for giving enhanced compensation.
13.Further, it is to be pointed out that W.P.No.27571 of 2025, has been filed
by the petitioner in his capacity as party-in-person, which could be accepted and acted upon only on the certificate issued by the appropriate Committee constituted by the High Court as per rules. In the present case, the petitioner, a practicing advocate, has filed the petition in his capacity as party-in-person, without the said certificate, on which ground the Registry of this Court has listed the petition under the caption for maintainability. In the absence of such a certificate, though this petition cannot be entertained, however, on other aspects, this petition cannot be held to be not maintainable. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that for the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition as the relief sought for cannot be granted.
14.For the reasons aforesaid, the plea canvassed by the petitioners cannot be
granted by this Court and, accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, stands closed.
[M.D.I.,J.] & [M.J.R, J.]
03.10.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
MR/GLN
Note: Registry to issue a copy of this order by 03.10.2025.
To
1. The Home Secretary,
Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
4. The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishna Salai, Chennai.
5. The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.
7. The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Head Quarters No.5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
8. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
9. The Central Bureau of Investigation,
Plot No.5-B, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
10. The Superintendent of Police
Collector Office Campus,
Thandoni, Karur – 639 007.
11. The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur-639 001.
12. The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
13. The Superintendent of Police,
Karur District,
Near Collector Office, Karur-639 007.
14. The Director – General
Central Bureau of Investigation
Lodhi Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi – 110 003.
15. The Joint Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation
Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.
MR
W.P.(MD)Nos.27556, 27563 and 27571 of 2025
03.10.2025
