In the Karur stampede case, the Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that “something is wrong” within the Madras High Court after examining a report submitted by its Registrar General.

 

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi directed that the report be circulated to all counsels and sought their responses.

 

Earlier, while hearing petitions demanding an independent probe into the September 27 stampede at a rally organised by actor Vijay’s political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), the Supreme Court had expressed concerns about how the Madras High Court exercised jurisdiction in the matter.

 

The bench had questioned how the principal seat at Chennai could order the creation of an SIT consisting exclusively of State Police officers when the incident occurred in Karur—an area under the Madurai Bench’s jurisdiction. Further, considering that the petition before the Chennai Bench merely sought implementation of an SOP for political rallies, the Court had asked how such a broad direction for an SIT could have been issued. Consequently, in its interim order dated October 13 directing a CBI probe, the Supreme Court sought a detailed explanation from the High Court’s Registrar General on how the matter was handled.

 

Today, after reviewing that report, Justice Maheshwari commented, “There is something wrong happening in the High Court. This is not appropriate… the Registrar General has submitted a report.”

 

Senior Advocate P. Wilson, for the State of Tamil Nadu, said, “In our High Court, anything incidental to the issue is dealt with through orders…”

 

Justice Maheshwari responded, “If some practice is wrong…,” signalling the Court’s concern over procedural irregularities.

 

Bench Declines to Modify Use of ‘Native’ in Earlier Judgment

 

An oral request was made to revise the Court’s use of the word “native” in paragraph 33 of its judgment ordering a CBI probe. In that judgment, to ensure neutrality, the Court had constituted a three-member Supervisory Committee led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi, directing him to select two senior IPS officers—preferably from the Tamil Nadu cadre but not natives of the State.

 

The bench refused to alter the language of the judgment. It also issued notice in a fresh petition filed by KK Ramesh.

 

Senior Advocate P. Wilson also mentioned the stay on the State-appointed Commission, assuring that the Commission would not interfere with the CBI investigation and would limit itself to making safety-related recommendations. The bench, however, did not vacate or modify its interim stay.

 

 

On October 13, the Supreme Court transferred the Karur stampede investigation to the CBI, noting that the political environment surrounding the incident, as well as public comments made by senior police officials, cast doubt on the fairness of a State-led probe. The tragedy had claimed 41 lives during a TVK rally.

 

The Court granted Tamil Nadu eight weeks to file its reply. The State’s affidavit has since attributed the tragedy to “reckless, negligent and uncoordinated actions” by TVK organisers and party workers led by actor-politician Vijay, and requested that the CBI investigation order be vacated.

 

The interim order arose from petitions filed by TVK and other parties.

 

 

TVK’s petition challenged the October 3 order of the Madras High Court (Chennai Bench) constituting an SIT. The party argued that appointing an SIT entirely made up of Tamil Nadu Police officers undermined the neutrality of the investigation, especially in light of the adverse remarks made against TVK and its leader Vijay. TVK requested an independent probe supervised by a former Supreme Court judge.

 

Meanwhile, separate petitions contested the Madurai Bench’s refusal to transfer the investigation to the CBI. During hearings, the Supreme Court questioned:

• how an SIT was ordered in a writ seeking only an SOP for political rallies,

• why the Chennai Bench passed orders concerning an incident within the Madurai Bench’s jurisdiction,

• why TVK was permitted to hold its rally at a venue deemed too narrow for AIADMK, whose request was denied,

• how postmortems of 30–40 victims occurred at midnight and cremations were completed by 4 a.m.

 

These concerns contributed to the Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the case to the CBI.