Wilson: 41 persons have died and 146 are injured- entire problem started when they gave sitting permission where the incident happened- it was said that actor will come in 12:30 and people started coming at 7

[10/10, 12:35] Sekarreporter: [10/10, 12:35] Sekarreporter: Justice Maheshwari: any other writ petition for formation of SOP was filed?

Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi(for state): yes. By this very party.

Sundaram: that was prior to the incident. Nothing after.
[10/10, 12:35] Sekarreporter: .
[10/10, 12:55] Sekarreporter: Karur stampede case:
Senior Advocates Gopal Subramaniam and Aryama Sundaram for TVK: Without hearing us, Madras HC has passed serious observations against us. Only Madurai bench of the Madras HC could have heard this case. Also, we didn’t flee, it was on the directions of police, we left the place. Police escorted us.
[10/10, 12:58] Sekarreporter: Rohatgi, for State: mylords are right- there are flurry of petitions-Madurai bench said we will not act because it has been acted upon. Reads various orders.

See para 6, the undertaking that AG says until SoP is framed the State Government will not grant any permission. See 11, in such circumstance, when issue is sub judice before Chennai, passing any order would be detrimental. The Court takes statement of Advocate General that no permission for road show will be granted. So, this Court did not go into the SoP before it is before the Chennai.

J Maheshwari: this was single judge and now, coming to another issue this SoP was persuaded because of karur incident but we are unable to understand how is this order was passed? when it was cognisant that single bench is doing, why division bench? this is fallacy. In my 15 years of experience, when we know division bench is cognisant, single bench says go

Advocate: opposite happened here

Rohatgi: under the impugned judgment, the Court itself appointed SIT and this is the correct statement of affairs, we have no axe to grind

Wilson: 41 persons have died and 146 are injured- entire problem started when they gave sitting permission where the incident happened- it was said that actor will come in 12:30 and people started coming at 7
[10/10, 12:59] Sekarreporter: Rohatgi, for State: mylords are right- there are flurry of petitions-Madurai bench said we will not act because it has been acted upon. Reads various orders.

See para 6, the undertaking that AG says until SoP is framed the State Government will not grant any permission. See 11, in such circumstance, when issue is sub judice before Chennai, passing any order would be detrimental. The Court takes statement of Advocate General that no permission for road show will be granted. So, this Court did not go into the SoP before it is before the Chennai.

J Maheshwari: this was single judge and now, coming to another issue this SoP was persuaded because of karur incident but we are unable to understand how is this order was passed? when it was cognisant that single bench is doing, why division bench? this is fallacy. In my 15 years of experience, when we know division bench is cognisant, single bench says go

Advocate: opposite happened here

Rohatgi: under the impugned judgment, the Court itself appointed SIT and this is the correct statement of affairs, we have no axe to grind

Wilson: 41 persons have died and 146 are injured- entire problem started when they gave sitting permission where the incident happened- it was said that actor will come in 12:30 and people started coming at 7