TVK didn’t officially request a CBI probe, its sympathisers and Panneerselvam did. The party’s supporters on social media also demanded it. It may well be a political strategy to preserve the party’s public image
Published Oct 13, 2025 | 7:14 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 13, 2025 | 7:18 PM
MK Stalin and Vijay.
Synopsis: The CBI probe isn’t necessarily a setback for the state government since it never opposed it. The high court had already set up an SIT; the Supreme Court has merely replaced it with a CBI probe. In fact, CBI inquiries tend to take years, whereas SITs usually conclude within three to six months.
The Supreme Court on Monday, 13 October, directed the CBI to probe the Karur stampede during a rally held by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), in which 41 people were killed.
A Bench of justices JK Maheshwari and NV Anjaria also constituted a special three-member panel to supervise the CBI probe into the 27 September tragedy. Former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi will head the panel. Justice Rastogi would select the remaining two members, Tamil Nadu-cadre IPS officers, but from outside the state.
The CBI probe was initiated based on a group of petitions by TVK, Advocate GS Mani, Panneerselvam Pitchaimuthu, Selvaraj P, and Advocate S Prabhakaran. Pannerselvam had lost his son, Krithik, in the stampede.
Earlier, both the Madurai Bench and the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court had conducted inquiries and issued various directions on the Karur stampede deaths.
On 10 October, the Supreme Court Bench heard the matter in detail, including the High Court’s handling of the case, and announced that orders would be issued on Monday.
The court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Madras High Court’s handling of the case.
The Supreme Court’s order has nullified Tamil Nadu’s initiatives, the constitution of an SIT, and a judicial commission.
During the proceedings, Sharmila (wife of Panneerselvam and mother of the deceased Krithik) and Selvaraj (husband of Chandra, who was also killed), stated via video conference that they had no connection whatsoever with the petitions.
Sharmila said that her husband, Panneerselvam, had been living separately for years, did not even attend their son’s funeral, and had filed the case without her knowledge.
Selvaraj revealed that a local AIADMK functionary had taken his signature under false pretences and that he was unaware that a case had been filed in his name.
The Tamil Nadu government’s counsel referred to these statements. The Bench observed that through this probe, “the truth will ultimately come out and reveal who is at fault.”
Senior journalist RK Radhakrishnan commented that the Supreme Court’s order resulted from the Tamil Nadu government’s weak arguments in court.
“Even if the government alleged that the other side had misled the court, its counter-arguments were poor. For instance, when the Bench questioned the post-mortem procedures, the government could have cited examples like the Ahmedabad air crash, where over 200 bodies were examined in 13 hours. But they didn’t.”
“How could the state’s counsel fail to verify that two of the petitioners were fake? With such a large bureaucratic apparatus, how could this slip through?” he asked.
Continuing, Radhakrishnan noted, “The Madras High Court already formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under IPS officer Aasra Garg, and the state government had set up a one-member commission under retired Justice Aruna Jagadeesan. Is Aasra Garg a DMK member?
Among the petitioners, TVK did not formally seek specifically a CBI probe. Instead, it requested for a court-monitored probe by an independent agency.
The main petitioner asking for a CBI investigation was Advocate Mani, the BJP’s Tamil Nadu Legal Cell Vice-President.
Of the others, Krithika’s mother Sharmila said her husband Panneerselvam had filed the case without her knowledge and that she had no connection to it, while Chandra’s husband Selvaraj formally disowned his petition in court.
A fifth petitioner, Advocate Prabhakaran, is said to have AIADMK affiliations.
Thus, the petitions filed by the two directly affected families have now been proven fraudulent.
Political analyst Prof. Arun Kumar wondered how a judgement could be passed based on petitions without genuine standing. “The Tamil Nadu government should appeal against this order,” he opined.
“The CBI probe isn’t necessarily a setback for the state government since it never opposed it. The high court had already set up an SIT; the Supreme Court has merely replaced it with a CBI probe. In fact, CBI inquiries tend to take years, whereas SITs usually conclude within three to six months,” he said.
When asked if the CBI demand was politically orchestrated, Prof. Kumar said, “Though TVK didn’t officially request a CBI probe, its sympathisers and Panneerselvam did. The party’s supporters on social media also demanded it. It may well be a political strategy to preserve the party’s public image.”
Radhakrishnan shared the same view. “Over the past decade, most cases that went to the CBI later saw the individuals involved joining or aligning with the BJP or helping form BJP-backed governments—as in Maharashtra, Assam. The CBI seems to function as a politically convenient tool for the ruling government.”
The Tamil Nadu government had appointed retired judge Justice Aruna Jagadeesan to head a one-member commission to probe the Karur tragedy.
Later, the Madras High Court formed a Special Investigation Team under Aasra Garg.
Now that the Supreme Court has ordered a CBI probe, questions arise about the fate of these existing inquiries.
Petitioner Mani said, “After the Supreme Court order, these commissions automatically cease to function; no separate order is required.”
However, DMK Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate P. Wilson, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, clarified, “The Supreme Court has only replaced the SIT with a CBI probe.”
He added, “This is not a setback for the state government. The high court had ordered a special investigation; the Supreme Court has now entrusted it to the CBI. The court has also asked the state to file a counter-affidavit. Once that is done, the order could even be set aside. We must wait and watch.”
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
