The Karnataka government has approached the High Court challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that set aside the suspension of Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vikash Kumar Vikash, one of the officers held responsible in the wake of the Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede that killed 11 people and injured 56 others on June 4.

In its July 1 ruling, a CAT bench of BK Shrivastava and Santosh Mehra termed the suspension as “mechanical” and lacking adequate justification. The Tribunal found that the government’s action was unsupported by sufficient evidence and accordingly directed Vikash’s immediate reinstatement.

Following the stampede—triggered by massive crowds that gathered to welcome the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) after their IPL 2025 victory—the State had suspended Vikash along with senior police officers B Dayananda, Shekar H Tekkannavar, C Balakrishna (ACP, Cubbon Park), and AK Girish (Inspector, Cubbon Park), citing dereliction of duty.

Vikash challenged his suspension before CAT, which found the order arbitrary and lacking material basis. Now contesting this verdict, the State government has submitted before the High Court that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by making factual conclusions as though a departmental inquiry had already been concluded.

The government claims it had submitted relevant extracts from the Karnataka Police Manual and an event chronology, sealed and placed on record before the Tribunal. These materials, it contends, were not duly considered. “The CAT failed to evaluate the suspension order in light of the substantive material furnished in justification,” the government said in its petition.

Further, the State argues that the Tribunal misinterpreted the purpose and scope of the magisterial inquiry and a one-man commission constituted to probe the incident. It also claims that a departmental inquiry against Vikash is currently in an advanced stage and this was orally conveyed to the Tribunal prior to the final order.

The State also pointed to Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, stating that the Tribunal failed to consider the suspension's confirmation by the competent authority in line with the service rules.

In addition, the plea criticizes the Tribunal for making suggestions about reinstating other suspended officers who were not parties to the case. “Such recommendations, made without examining individual facts or service records, are irregular and outside the scope of the proceedings,” the State argues.

It concludes that the Tribunal exceeded its remit by issuing observations on matters beyond the pleadings and record, reflecting a prejudicial approach inconsistent with established legal principles.