The high court also announced it would appoint an amicus curiae to assist it, and issued notices to KSCA, RCB, and DNA Entertainment, making them party respondents in the matter.
Published Jun 17, 2025 | 4:37 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 17, 2025 | 4:37 PM
The Karnataka High Court. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: In the Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede case, the Karnataka High Court rejected the state’s plea for secrecy and delay, insisting on transparency and swift action. The court questioned the need for sealed reports and dual probes, and opposed opacity. It plans to appoint an amicus curiae and has issued notices to KSCA, RCB, and DNA Entertainment. Hearing resumes 23 June.
In a significant hearing on the Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede case, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, 17 June, made it clear that it would not be bound by the state’s request for more time or secrecy around the proceedings.
Taking a strong stand, the Bench said it would stay focused on the core concerns raised in its earlier order, even as multiple applications, including for enhanced compensation and public release of the state’s report, were brought before it.
The high court received a sealed cover submission from the state government on Thursday, 12 June, handed over by Advocate General (AG) K Shashikiran Shetty. It contained the state’s detailed response to nine specific questions posed earlier by the court.
The sealed report was taken on record by a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi. The matter was then adjourned to Tuesday for further hearing.
The high court had orally made it clear that the magisterial probe and the commission of inquiry are not binding on the court’s ongoing proceedings and it has its own understanding and will proceed on that basis.
It had further added that it doesn’t understand why two probes— magisterial and commission of inquiry— were ordered.
On Tuesday, when a counsel called for making state’s report public stating that, “Transparency and accountability is absolutely paramount,” the AG responded that state does not want to pre-judge, influence ongoing inquiries, which is why its preliminary opinions, interim report should be maintained in sealed cover.
The AG also urged the high court to defer the matter for 20–25 days until all reports were in—citing no third-party rights or urgency—the court questioned the need for delay, firmly asking: “Why should that restrict us?”
The AG further sought to keep the state’s status report under sealed cover, stating that parts of it included legal opinions and should not be “flashed on TV” as conclusive findings. However, the court pushed back, saying: “We are ready to hear you (state) on that (whether the state’s status report should be made public).”
Multiple counsels appearing in the matter strongly opposed the sealed cover practice. One submitted that transparency was key, reading out from a precedent: “It is an elementary principle of law that all material relied on should be disclosed… A one-sided submission causes serious violation of natural justice.” Also adding, “Sealed covers lead to a culture of opacity.”
The court clarified that it would not expand the scope of the case to club it with petitions filed by KSCA, RCB, or DNA Entertainment.
The high court also announced it would appoint an amicus curiae to assist it, and issued notices to KSCA, RCB, and DNA Entertainment, making them party respondents in the matter.
The matter is now listed for further hearing on Monday, 23 June, at 2:30 PM.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
