Published Jul 07, 2026 | 1:07 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 07, 2026 | 1:07 PM
The DMK had sought curbs on public statements by CM Vijay and Ministers Aadhav Arjuna, Anand and Nirmal in connection with the Karur stampede case.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the DMK to withdraw its petition seeking restrictions on public remarks by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay and others in connection with the Karur stampede case. The withdrawal came after the Bench questioned the maintainability of the plea and objected to referring to Vijay as an accused, noting that he was not named in the FIR.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 7 July, allowed the DMK to withdraw its petition seeking restrictions on public statements by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay and Ministers Aadhav Arjuna, Anand and Nirmal in connection with the Karur stampede case, after the Bench raised strong objections to the reliefs sought and the manner in which the plea had been drafted.
A Bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe was hearing the petition.
Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar and Asifa Ahmadi appeared for the DMK and argued that attempts were being made to influence public opinion on the Karur incident, which could prejudice the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the stampede ordered by the apex court.
The party had sought court-approved safeguards to regulate interactions between the accused and witnesses during the investigation.
It referred to reports of Chief Minister Vijay’s proposed visit to Karur on 10 July to distribute government welfare assistance and compassionate appointments to the families of those who died in the stampede.
The DMK also sought directions for the CBI to examine a speech delivered by Arjuna on 2 July.
Also Read: Playing ostrich? Tamil Nadu TRB’s clarification skirts Part-2 evaluation issue
The Bench questioned whether the Supreme Court could issue administrative directions to a Chief Minister in such circumstances and took strong exception to advocate Ranjit Kumar referring to Vijay as an “accused” in the case.
The Bench pointed out that the FIR registered during the previous DMK government did not name Vijay as an accused.
“Please read the records properly before making submissions in court,” the Bench remarked.
The judges said that if any public statements amounted to a violation of court orders, the appropriate remedy would be to initiate contempt proceedings rather than seek a CBI investigation.
The Bench advised the parties to “keep your political battles outside the courtroom” and said that it was inclined to dismiss the petition.
Following these observations, the DMK sought permission to withdraw the petition, which the Bench allowed.
Before closing the matter, the Bench said that the DMK could file a properly drafted petition and seek appropriate relief, if it was so advised.
