The tragic Karur stampede, which claimed 41 lives during Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s (TVK) rally in late September, has snowballed into a legal battle with Supreme Court set to hear two separate petitions against the probe by Madras High Court–ordered Special Investigation Team (SIT). The petitions filed by TVK challenges the Madras High Court's damning remarks and SIT order while another by advocate G.S. Mani seeks a CBI probe on grounds that both the state government and the police are interested parties.
At the heart of this legal clash lies a broader question — can an investigation led by state police inspire public confidence when the tragedy itself unfolded under the state’s watch?
TVK’s challenge
In its special leave petition (SLP), the TVK has taken strong exception to the Madurai Bench’s October 3 order, which not only blamed the party for triggering the stampede but also accused its leadership, including actor-politician Vijay, of fleeing from the scene and showing no remorse.
TVK’s plea contends that such findings were made without hearing the party or examining evidence, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It also points out that the High Court had itself expressed doubts about the neutrality of the Tamil Nadu police but still chose to appoint a SIT drawn entirely from state officers.
“The same police force that failed to maintain order cannot investigate itself,” TVK argues, seeking instead a court-monitored or judicial-led inquiry headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The party claims it had, contrary to judicial observations, immediately deployed volunteers for crowd control and first aid once signs of distress appeared. By painting the leadership as absconding, the petition says, the High Court created an irreversible prejudice in the public mind especially when the SIT is now expected to report to the same court.
Demand for a CBI probe
Supreme Court advocate G.S. Mani has filed an SLP seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI, describing the High Court-ordered SIT as a continuation of police failure in another form.
His petition states that the deaths occurred due to criminal negligence, gross dereliction of duty, and deliberate mismanagement by both TVK organisers and local authorities. However, since the state government and police machinery share responsibility, an internal probe would not meet the standards of impartiality.
Mani’s petition further raises concerns about tampering of evidence and political influence, claiming that critical CCTV footage from the venue was not secured for hours and that crowd control barricades had been moved to accommodate latecomers to the rally.
He urged the top court to direct the CBI to register an FIR under relevant sections and to investigate the roles of both private organisers and state officers in charge of safety permissions.
Two probes
The state government, meanwhile, has gone ahead with both the SIT and a one-member commission headed by retired High Court judge Aruna Jagadeesan to examine systemic lapses. The SIT, led by senior IPS officer Asra Garg, has already visited the site, examined witnesses, and sought digital evidence.
However, this dual structure - a police SIT under judicial monitoring and a separate fact-finding commission risks blurring accountability lines.
The controversy has also taken on a political dimension. The High Court’s observation that Vijay fled the scene has triggered fierce backlash from TVK supporters, who see it as a judicial overstatement. For a party built around the actor’s clean image, the court’s language struck at its moral core.
When the Supreme Court hears the matter likely on October 10, it will essentially decide not just who probes, but how trust is restored. |
