New Delhi, Oct 10 (UNI) The Supreme Court today expressed concern over two seemingly conflicting orders passed by the Madras High Court in connection with the Karur stampede that claimed 41 lives in Tamil Nadu.
While the Madurai bench had declined a plea for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, the principal bench in Chennai ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiry.
A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice N.V. Anjaria was hearing an appeal filed by Tamil actor Vijay’s political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), challenging the October 3 order of the Madras High Court directing an SIT probe into the tragic incident that occurred on September 27.
At the outset, the Supreme Court questioned the propriety of the principal bench entertaining a PIL for formulating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for rallies when the Madurai bench had already dismissed a plea concerning the same incident.
“In para 3 of the order, it is mentioned that the writ petition filed before the Madurai Bench was declined.
Once it is a petition concerning Karur, and the Madurai Bench was seized of it, why was it entertained by the principal Bench — that too for SOP?” the Court observed.
The bench further noted that the original plea before the High Court sought only the framing of an SOP, but the High Court went beyond that limited prayer and ordered a probe by an SIT.
“What is disturbing us is that the prayer was only for permission to conduct meetings. The High Court saw something else, and then, while SOP was prayed for, it went into an SIT direction. We should limit somewhere,” the Bench remarked.
The apex court reserved its verdict after a lengthy hearing.
The stampede occurred during a political rally addressed by actor-turned-politician Vijay in Karur on September 27, resulting in 41 deaths.
Justice N. Senthilkumar of the Madras High Court, in his October 3 order, had directed an SIT probe citing dissatisfaction with the state’s investigation. The Court had also noted that no criminal case had been registered concerning two accidents allegedly involving Vijay’s campaign bus.
Following this order, a criminal case was reportedly filed against the bus driver.
TVK, in its plea before the Supreme Court, argued that the High Court’s observations were made suo motu without affording the party a chance to be heard.
It also contended that the order caused prejudice as the SIT comprised only Tamil Nadu Police officers, despite the High Court’s own doubts regarding the independence of the State police.
The party suggested a retired Supreme Court judge oversee the investigation.
Appearing for TVK, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium argued that the matter should have been heard by the Madurai Bench. “This should have been before the Madurai Bench because it had already entertained petitions. The order was passed without any affidavit and without hearing us. I was not even made a party,” he said.
Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, also representing TVK, submitted that while an SIT probe was acceptable, it should be chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge empowered to select its members. “Let there be a fair investigation. If a retired judge chairs the SIT, let him also have the freedom to constitute it,” he urged.
The bench then questioned the state over the apparent conflict between the two benches of the High Court dealing with the same incident. “Same day, different orders have been passed? There should be some propriety for the system,” Justice Maheshwari remarked.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, responded that the Madurai bench had refrained from passing any order after noting that the principal Bench was already seized of the matter. “We have no axe to grind. The SIT was appointed by the Court itself,” he submitted.
However, the Bench pointed out that all SIT members were state police officers.
To this, Rohatgi clarified that one of the officers, was a senior CBI officer on deputation.
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing the state, argued that the tragedy occurred because of actor Vijay’s delayed arrival at the rally venue. “The problem started when, instead of coming at the scheduled time, the actor arrived late. People started gathering from 7 a.m.,” he said.
Senior Advocate V. Raghavachari, appearing for the victims, blamed the state police for mishandling the situation. “Forty post-mortems were conducted late at night in just a few hours. The State should have handed over the case to the CBI instead of forming its own SIT,” he contended.
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the maintainability of the High Court’s SIT order and the conflicting directions issued by its two benches.
