Madras High Court: In the present petition, where the petitioner sought a direction to the State to consider his representation for framing Standard Operating Procedures (‘SOP’) to regulate roadshows, following a tragic incident at Karur where 41 people lost their lives during a permitted political event of the Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (‘TVK’), a Single Judge Bench of N. Senthilkumar, J., while disposing of the petition, held that although the Court was aware that the political party was not arrayed as a respondent, it was incumbent upon such a party to have taken immediate steps to rescue and assist individuals caught in the stampede-like situation arising from the massive crowd, in which many children, women, and several young persons had tragically lost their lives. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to constitute a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation.
Background:
The petitioner filed the petition asking the Court to direct the authorities to consider his representation dated 30-09-2025. He wanted the State to frame SOPs for conducting roadshows. The representation followed a roadshow permitted by the police at Karur, where a major man-made disaster occurred, resulting in the loss of 41 lives.
The political party involved, TVK, sent several letters to the police between 09-09-2025 and 26-09-2025, changing the proposed venue multiple times. Eventually, permission was granted on 26-09-2025 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur, to hold the programme at Karur Velusamypuram, subject to eleven conditions. However, only two out of the eleven conditions were followed, and the rest were blatantly violated.
It was alleged that the party’s website and a press interview had confirmed that the programme would begin at 12:00 noon, which led to a large crowd gathering early in the day, anticipating the arrival of the party leader, Vijay. As a result, a Commission of Inquiry was set up by the Government through the Government Order dated 28-09-2025. Meanwhile, a criminal case was registered under Sections 105, 110, 125(b), and 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 for various offences. Pursuant to the First Information Report (‘FIR’), the District Secretary (A1) was arrested on 29-09-2025, and another person was remanded on 30-09-2025.
It was submitted that the entire nation witnessed the tragic sequence of events and the aftermath, which resulted in the loss of 41 lives. Shockingly, the programme organisers, including the leader of the political party, had absconded from the venue, abandoning their own cadres, followers, and fans.
Furthermore, the videography presented showed that the bus carrying Vijay was involved in two separate accidents, one with motorcycles and another at the rear end, yet no FIRs were registered for the offences of hit and run.
Analysis and Decision:
Expressing deep anguish and concern over the failure of the authorities to take action, the Court emphasised that even in the absence of a formal complaint from the aggrieved parties, it was the duty of the State to register a suo motu FIR and ensure that the accused faced trial in accordance with law.
The Court strongly condemned the conduct of TVK Leader Vijay, the organisers of the event, and the members of the political party for fleeing from the scene of occurrence immediately after the mishaps. While the Court was aware that the political party was not arrayed as a respondent, it was incumbent upon such a party to have taken immediate steps to rescue and assist individuals caught in the stampede-like situation arising from the massive crowd, in which many children, women, and several young persons tragically lost their lives.
Regrettably, the Court found that there was no statement or expression of responsibility from the political party viz., TVK, regarding the occurrence, either in their official Twitter account or in other social media, regretting the stampede that took place. The Court also noted that there was no communication in any form or manner regretting the incident, and this omission reflected the political party’s disregard for human life and public accountability.
Furthermore, the Court was of the considered opinion that the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur, was a necessary party to the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court, suo motu, impleaded the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur, as a party respondent in the petition.
The Court highlighted that the State had already given an undertaking that no permission for the conduct of public meetings on the State Highways or National Highways would be granted until SOPs regarding the conduct of meetings in public places were framed by the State Government and approved by the Court, which was duly recorded. Though the prayer in the present petition was limited, the Court noted that the scope of the petition was widened due to the extraordinary circumstances, which warranted extraordinary measures. Thus, the Court stated that it could not close its eyes, remain a mute spectator, or shrink from its constitutional responsibilities.
Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to constitute a SIT to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation. The Court directed that the SIT was to be headed by the Inspector General of Police (North Zone) and was to include the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, and the Superintendent of Police, Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department. In addition, the Inspector General of Police (North Zone) was at liberty to select additional team members under any category or designation as he deemed fit.
Though it was submitted that an FIR was already registered and that an investigation was underway, the Court was not satisfied with the progress or independence of the said investigation. Accordingly, the submission was declined, and the SIT stood constituted with effect from that day. The Court ordered that the available CCTV footages from the place of the incident, more particularly the CCTV footages inside and outside the bus carrying the leader of the political party, were to be seized. Moreover, the said bus, which was involved in the hit-and-run, was also to be seized.
Therefore, with the given directions and observations, the Court disposed of the petition without costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
[P.H.Dinesh v. State of TN, WP Crl. No. 1000 of 2025, decided on 03-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: G. Sankaran, Senior counsel for S. Bharathi Rajan
For the Respondents: J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by S. Santhosh Government Advocate, Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, State Public Prosecutor (for R 2) assisted by A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor
