Supreme Court: While considering this petition challenging Madras High Court’s direction of constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the unfortunate incident of stampede which occurred on 27-09-2025 at about 7.30 P.M. in Velusamypuram, Karur District, Tamil Nadu (the “Karur stampede”); the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., taking note of the gravity of the matter, transferred the investigation to the CBI. The Court directed CBI’s director to forthwith appoint a senior officer for taking over the investigation and appoint some other officers for assistance of the said officer.
The Court further proposed to set up a three-member Supervisory Committee (the “Committee”) headed by a former Judge of Supreme Court so as to allay the concerns of all parties, in the pursuit of independence and impartiality of the investigation. The Court requested former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ajay Rastogi, who agreed to head the said Committee.
Background:
The Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) headed by Vijay (a renowned Tamil actor) was set to visit Velusamypuram in Karur District, Tamil Nadu for a public meeting. Purported permission to conduct the said rally as requested by the TVK, was granted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, on 26-09-2025.
In order to attend the said rally and meeting, huge crowd gathered at the spot to see him. On 27-9-2025, the huge gathering led to a stampede which resulted in loss of 41 innocent lives and causing injuries to more than 100 persons.
In the aftermath of the unfortunate incident, FIR was registered on 27-09-2025 in Police Station Karur Town under Sections 105, 110, 125-B, 223 of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) read with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (“TNPP Act”). The investigation was initiated by the police, and immediately on the same date, and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu announced the formation of a one-member Enquiry Commission headed by a retired High Court Judge, Justice Aruna Jagadeeshan.
In this duration, multiple writ petitions came up before the Madras High Court vis-a-vis safety protocols and SOP for all public gathering, rallies before and after the Karur stampede. The Single Judge Bench of the main Bench of the High Court, vide the impugned order, suo moto decided to enlarge the scope of the writ petition, stating extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures, even in absence of pleadings and prayer for constitution of SIT. The Single Judge made some observations about the Karur stampede. the TVK and its members were not made party and without joining the necessary parties and affording opportunity, the order impugned was passed. The Court also directed for the formation of SIT consisting of the officers of the State.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the impugned judgment passed by the High Court’s single Judge Bench, the Court noted that the judgment was completely silent as to how he arrived at such a conclusion and what material was perused by the Court. The said order mainly referred to the submissions made by the Additional Advocate General.
The Court further pointed out that where the prayer to form SOP / Guidelines for public rallies affecting general public at large was being examined, however, such petition ought to be dealt with by the Division Bench, registering as public interest litigation in right earnest, and not by a Single Bench.
The Court further pointed out that the Karur stampede fell within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench where, writ petitions, seeking investigation by the CBI and also formation of SIT were filed and heard by a Division Bench on the same date. Such being the case, there was no occasion for the Single Judge of the Main Seat of the Madras High Court to entertain a writ petition, without orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court in that regard.
The Court further noted that the Division Bench at Madurai denied the CBI investigation, holding that the investigation by the local police is not flawed, while the Single Judge at the Main Seat, dissatisfied with the police investigation, directed for constitution of SIT. The Court opined that such recourse prima facie indicates the lack of sensitivity and propriety to deal with such a matter creating multiplicity of proceedings.
The Supreme Court thus emphasised that afore-stated events with regard to the High Court dealing with this issue is a matter of concern and it would be required to be explained by the High Court that a writ petition praying for formation of SOP / Guidelines for the rallies of political parties and roadshows, how far it would fall within the jurisdiction of Writ Petition (Criminal). The Court further directed furnishing of answers vis-a-vis treatment of writ petition (criminal) dated 16-9-2025, which was filed by TVK seeking necessary permissions for conducting political campaigns, but as per the orders of the High Court it was kept pending for formation of the SOP/guidelines. An explanation in that regard was directed to be furnished by the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court bringing this order in the knowledge of the High Court’s Chief Justice.
Coming onto the tragic deaths caused by the Karur Stampede, the Court pointed out that grief of the families of the deceased, injured victims and kith and kin of those who lost their lives in this tragedy. “For them, the political tussle between the two sides is of little solace. All they are asking is for an unbiased, independent and impartial investigation in their pursuit of justice. They have knocked the doors of the High Court as well as of this Court along with the public — spirited persons, making a prayer for unbiased, uninfluenced investigation by a central agency”.
The Court stated that the incident of Karur stampede has definitely left an imprint in the minds of the citizens throughout the country, wherein 41 persons died in a stampede and more than 100 were injured, it has wide ramifications in respect of the life of the citizens and in this context enforcing the fundamental rights of the families who lost their kith and kin is of utmost importance. The faith and trust of the general public on the process of investigation must be restored in the criminal justice system, and one way to instill such trust is by ensuring that the investigation in the present case is completely impartial, independent and unbiased.
Therefore, transferring the investigation to CBI, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police and SHO of the Karur Town PS as well as the SIT set up pursuant to the order of the Single Judge and the Enquiry Commission set-up by the Chief Minister, to immediately hand over the FIR and other relevant papers, evidence — digital or otherwise collected till now for further investigation to the officers of the CBI.
Proposing to form a Supervisory Committee under leadership of Justice Ajay Rastogi, former Supreme Court Judge, the Court requested him to choose two Senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, who may be of Tamil Nadu cadre but shall not be a native of Tamil Nadu, as per his choice. The scope and mandate of the Committee so formed shall be as follows:
(i) The Committee shall monitor the investigation transferred to the CBI and is at liberty to issue proper directions for the areas in which the investigation is required to be carried out;
(ii) It shall monitor the investigation carried out by the CBI as directed;
(iii) The Committee shall have the liberty to review the evidence collected by the CBI from time to time and supervise the investigation to ensure that it reaches its logical conclusion;
(iv) The Committee may undertake an inquiry into any matter ancillary / incidental to the Karur stampede which might be necessary to ensure fair, transparent and independent investigation into the matter as it deems fit.
(v) The Committee shall devise its own procedure as per the directions of the former Judge.
Considering the ramifications of the incident and its gravity, the Court requested the Chairman of the Committee to immediately organize its first meeting after taking over of the charge of the investigation by the CBI.
[Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. Union of India, Diary No. 58048/2025, order dated 13-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. Aryama Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Dixita Gohil, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Ms. Gauri Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Shreeyash Lalit, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Nishvaakk, Adv. Mr. Mahendran T., Adv. Mr. Anand Satyaselan, Adv. Mr. Yash S. Vijay, AOR Mr. Shikhar Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Aditi Soni, Adv. Ms. Sukriti Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Mr. Jayvardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Raghav Kohli, Adv. Mr. Adnan Yousuf, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Juyal, Adv. Mr. Joel George, Adv. Mr. Ankit Malhotra, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Mr. Varun Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Dhanya S. Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Selvam P., Adv. Mr. Ganesh Kanna R, Adv. Mr. Mohan Parathasarathy, Adv. Mr. D.S. Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yasharth Shukla, Adv. Mr. Tasha Yashin, Adv. Mr. Aman Malik , AOR Mr. V Raghavachari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Subornadeep Bhatcharjee, Adv. Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Adv. Mr. A G Vedavikas, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Ms. Suvarna Singh, Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. Vimal Pani, Adv. Mr. Sathya Priya S., Adv. Mr. Samarhar Singh, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. John Mathew, AOR Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Wilson, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Sr. Adv. Mr. J. Ravindran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. S. Santhosh, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Ms. Aashigaa Pravaagini, Adv. Ms. Reena T., Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. K. S. Badhrinathan, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Arpitha Anna Mathew, Adv. Ms. Samridhi Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sivani KMS, Adv. Mr. Richardson Wilson, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv. Mr. Aditya Ojha, Adv. Mr. Saran Raghunadan, Adv. Mr. Aravind, Adv. Mr. Gouthani Bhaskar, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv.