The Supreme Court on October 9 reserved its orders on a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the Karur stampede that occurred during a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) rally in Tamil Nadu on September 27, which tragically claimed 41 lives.

A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and NV Anjaria heard the matters for over two hours before reserving judgment.

One of the petitions was filed by TVK, led by actor Vijay, challenging the Madras High Court’s October 3 order that constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising only Tamil Nadu Police officers. The party, represented through its General Secretary Aadhav Arjuna, objected to both the composition of the SIT and the adverse observations made by the High Court against Vijay and the party.

Other connected petitions assailed the Madurai Bench’s refusal to transfer the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the propriety of the High Court’s orders, noting that the SIT direction was passed in a plea originally filed to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for political rallies. The Bench also asked why the Principal Bench at Chennai dealt with the matter when Karur falls within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench.

TVK Seeks Independent Probe Monitored by Retired SC Judge

Senior Advocates Gopal Subramanium and C.A. Sundaram, appearing for TVK, argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and made politically damaging remarks against Vijay without hearing him. Subramanium stated,

“The route is determined by the police. Vijay was escorted out by them. These observations that he abandoned the site are completely wrong.”

Sundaram added that TVK only sought a fair, impartial investigation, preferably under a retired Supreme Court judge, and not one handled solely by State officers.

Bench Questions High Court’s Approach

Justice Maheshwari expressed serious reservations about the process adopted by the Madras High Court, observing:

“We are unable to understand how this order was passed. In my experience of over 15 years as a judge, a single bench holds back if a division bench has already taken cognizance.”

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the State, defended the SIT’s composition, stating that the officers were known for their integrity. Senior Advocate P. Wilson, also for the State, submitted that the stampede occurred due to crowd mismanagement, explaining that Vijay’s delayed arrival led to unrest.

However, the Bench clarified that its focus was limited to the issue of investigation, not on attributing blame for the tragedy.

Pleas for CBI Probe and Allegations of Foul Play

Alongside TVK’s petition, the Court also heard pleas seeking a CBI probe, including one filed by Paneerselvam, whose 10-year-old son died in the incident. His counsel, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, alleged that the police prematurely exonerated themselves through a press conference.

Senior Advocate Raghavachari, also pressing for a CBI probe, alleged possible sabotage, citing claims that DMK members predicted the tragedy hours before it occurred. He also questioned the overnight completion of all postmortems and the grant of permission for the rally in a narrow area previously deemed unsuitable for similar events.

Bench Questions State on Permission and Postmortems

Justice Maheshwari posed several pointed questions to the State:

“Why was permission granted when there was an order not to grant it until the SOP was finalized? You conducted postmortems in four hours at midnight — how many tables were there? Two?”

In response, P. Wilson said the Collector had permitted night autopsies as families were pleading for the bodies and doctors from nearby districts were called in. He undertook to file an affidavit addressing all queries raised by the Bench.

After detailed submissions from all sides, the Bench stated,

“We will see what orders we can pass. Order reserved.”

Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh & Ors., Diary No. 58048/2025 (and connected cases)