The Supreme Court today (October 9) reserved orders on a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the stampede which occurred in Karur in Tamil Nadu during a rally by actor Vijay’s political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam(TVK) on September 27, claiming 41 lives.

[10/10, 16:12] Sekarreporter: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/karur-stampede-supreme-court-questions-madras-hc-order-for-sit-probe-tvk-vijay-306526
[10/10, 16:12] Sekarreporter: The Supreme Court today (October 9) reserved orders on a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the stampede which occurred in Karur in Tamil Nadu during a rally by actor Vijay’s political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam(TVK) on September 27, claiming 41 lives.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matters for over two hours.

One of the petitions was filed by TVK , challenging the October 3 order of the Madras High Court that constituted a Special Investigation team(SIT) to investigate the Karur stampede. The party’s petition, filed through its General Secretary Aadhav Arjuna, objected to the High Court forming the SIT only with the officers of the Tamil Nadu Police. They also took exception to the adverse remarks made by the High Court against TVK and Vijay.

Other petitions challenged the October 3 order passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court refusing to transfer the investigation to the CBI.

During the hearing, the bench orally questioned the manner in which the High Court passed the order. It noted that the SIT investigation was ordered in a petition were seeking a Standard Operating Protocol for political rallies. The bench also asked how the principal bench in Chennai could pass orders when Karur fell within the jurisdiction of Madurai bench.

TVK seeks an independent investigation monitored by retired SC judge

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, for the TVK, submitted that the writ petition before the High Court was filed only for a limited purpose – to frame SOP for political rallies. However, SIT was constituted by the Court on the first day itself. Also,the High Court made adverse remarks against TVK and Vijay without hearing them, the senior counsel submitted.

Justice Maheswhari then asked whether the petition, which was filed seeking an SOP for political rallies, could have been registered as a Writ Petition (Criminal).

Justice Maheshwari further asked why the principal bench in Chennai entertained the petition relating to the incident in Karur, which falls within the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench.

Senior Advocate CA Sundaram, also for TVK, said that the Chief Justice can authorise a Special Bench to hear the matter, but it has not happened in this case.

Subramanium said that the High Court’s observations that TVK and Vijay abandoned the place and that they did not express remorse were wrong. Sundaram added that the police forced Vijay to leave the place, saying that his continued presence at the site would aggravate the situation.

“The route is determined by the police, the man (Vijay) was escorted out by the police,” Subramanium stated. He added that neither Vijay nor TVK were a party in the petition. “These observations are politically damning to us,” Sundaram added.

“To have an SIT with the officers only of the State, we have a problem. Let there be a fair investigation. We are wary of the State. All we want is an impartial investigation. Let a retired judge of the Supreme Court preside over it, we have no problem,” Sundaram stated.

‘We are unable to understand how the order was passed?’ : Bench says

Addressing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the State, Justice Maheshwari said, “We are unable to understand how this order was passed?.” The Judge asked how the single bench in the Chennai Bench proceeded with the matter when the division bench in Madurai was considering the matter. “In my experience of over 15 years as a judge, a single bench holds back if the division bench has taken cognizance.”

Rohatgi submitted that the SIT was composed by the Court itself and that the State did not give any names. He asserted that the officers are known for their integrity and independence, and there was no reason to doubt their independence.

Senior Advocate P Wilson, for the State, said that 41 people died in the stampede. He said that the incident occurred because an announcement was given that the actor would arrive at 12 noon, whereas he came only at about 7 PM. However, people had started gathering from morning itself, Wilson added. Justice Maheshwari, however said that the bench was only on the question of investigation.

Along with TVK’s plea, the bench also heard two other petitions which challenge the Madurai Bench’s refusal to hand over the investigation to the CBI. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the petitioner(Paneerselvam) whose 10-year-old son died in the incident, said that the police had held a press conference exonerating themselves. Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi, for the State, submitted that there was no justification for a CBI investigation. In the absence of findings regarding grave lapses by the State police, CBI investigation cannot be ordered in a casual manner, Singhvi submitted, citing certain precedents. Singhvi also stated that Paneerselvam was not a petitioner before the High Court. In response, Naidu said that his client was grieving his son’s death and was not in a position to file a petition immediately.

Miscreants created trouble in the crowd : Petitioner

The bench also heard Senior Advocate Raghavachari, who was also seeking a CBI probe. He alleged that even before the meeting took place, DMK members, at about 3 PM, were saying that a tragedy was going to take place. He alleged that the stampede was not spontaneous, as the police allowed a miscreant to throw a shoe into the crowd, which led to police lathicharge. He also questioned how the postmortem of all the victims was completed in one night. He added that when another political party, AIADMK, had sought permission for rally in the same spot, it was denied, saying that it was a narrow area. However, authorities granted permission to Vijay’s rally.

During the hearing, Justice Maheshwari again questioned the Madras High Court’s manner of passing the order, saying that SIT probe was ordered in the pleas seeking SOP. “I am unable to understand, Chennai court, they are not looking at the prayer which is given. Something has to be done about propriety. Here in this case, the prayer is different and the court considers different prayers,” Justice Maheshwari said.

Why State granted permission? How post-mortems were conducted? Bench asks State

During the hearing, the bench posed questions to Senior Advocate P Wilson regarding the manner in which the State granted permission.

“Why was permission granted when there was an order [to not give permission until SoP is finalised],” Justice Maheshwari asked.

“You conducted postmortem in four hours at midnight?,” Justice Maheshwari further asked. “How many portmortem tables are there? Two?” Justice Maheshwari asked further. Wilson said that since people were pleading for bodies to be given, Collector permitted conducting autopsies at night and doctors from nearby districts were called.

He undertook to file an affidavit answering the queries made by the bench. He also refuted the allegation that a shoe was thrown into the crowd deliberately to create a ruckus.

After hearing the parties, the bench reserved order. “We will see what orders we can pass. Order reserved,” Justice Maheshwari said.

Case Details: TAMILAGA VETTRI KAZHAGAM vs. P.H. DINESH|Diary No. – 58048/2025 and connected cases.