TVK's counsel said the party should not be solely blamed and that government agencies also bore responsibility.
Published Sep 30, 2025 | 3:23 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 30, 2025 | 3:23 PM
The area where the stampede occurred.
Synopsis: The Karur District Court questioned TVK over claiming that they did not expect a crowd of more than 10,000 people for the rally of party’s chief Vijay, which claimed the lives of at least 41 people and injured over 60 others. The court noted that the party should have foreseen the crowd, as Vijay was more of a popular actor than a politician.
The Karur District Court in Tamil Nadu on Tuesday, 30 September, questioned Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) over claiming that they did not expect a crowd of more than 10,000 people for the rally of party’s chief and actor-turned-politician Vijay, which claimed the lives of at least 41 people and injured over 60 others.
The TVK had told the court that since the TVK was a relatively new party and it was salary day in the Karur district, it did not expect such a massive crowd. However, Justice Bharat Kumar, who heard the case, noted that the party should have foreseen the crowd, as Vijay was more of a popular actor than a politician.
TVK counsel stated that the “truth of what happened” would be documented and submitted, urging that no decision be taken without full clarity.
The party insisted that arrests should not have been made before the Commission’s report was released. Advocate Thandapani represented the state government, while TVK was represented by Advocate Arasu.
The TVK counsel argued that the party had formally approached the Superintendent of Police (SP) on 19 September, requesting space for campaigning. The party said it had asked permission on 23 September to conduct the event at the Lighthouse Roundabout area, and added that the police denied permission, saying the venue was already allotted for another request.
TVK explained that since it is a “growing party,” they expected around 10,000 people to attend the function and requested the Lighthouse ground since it was vacant.
According to their own measurements, the ground was about 20,000 sq ft, sufficient to hold up to 60,000 people. The party further argued that since 27 September was salary day in Karur district, they did not expect unusually large crowds.
They insisted that all conditions were followed, adding: “If you say where we violated them, we will respond.”
Police noted that another political meeting— the rally of AIADMK leader Edappadi Palaniswami (EPS) — at the permitted venue had drawn only 15,000 people with 137 police personnel deployed, whereas Vijay’s presence drew disproportionately larger crowds.
After hearing the arguments, the judge remarked, “If it is EPS’s meeting, only his supporters will come. But if it is Vijay, all sections of people, including children, will definitely come.”
The judge questioned TVK: “Why did you seek permission only for 10,000 people? Did you not know that on a holiday, people from all backgrounds would attend?”
Further, the court criticised TVK’s crowd estimate: “Your leader cannot be compared with other political leaders. He is a top star. If Vijay comes, it is no longer just a campaign rally; it becomes a conference. Saying only 10,000 would come was wrong.”
The judge further pressed: “When it became clear that the crowd was far larger than expected, why didn’t the organisers stop the event?” The court also questioned why TVK ignored police instructions to stop the campaign vehicle 50 meters ahead.
Further, TVK accused the police of negligence: Barricades and stones were left on the road, drains were covered only with flimsy sheets, and central road dividers were not removed despite repeated requests. They argued these obstacles contributed directly to the accident.
TVK’s counsel said the party should not be solely blamed and that government agencies also bore responsibility. “We did not bring people with money; the public came voluntarily. The state should have provided them with adequate protection,” TVK argued.
The party said police themselves had warned that 50,000 people might attend, yet failed to control the crowd. TVK also alleged political conspiracy in the arrests.
They added that during the police lathi-charge, the crowd panicked and surged, worsening the stampede.
However, the police argued that TVK leaders underestimated the crowd when they officially sought permission for only 10,000 attendees when at least 50,000 were expected.
Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) Selvaraj testified that the Lighthouse area was unsuitable due to a bridge and that second-line TVK leaders had not inspected the site. He said TVK itself advertised earlier arrival times for Vijay, creating additional crowd pressure.
The police contended that TVK vehicles arrived late via the wrong route. “They took a wrong route despite my instructions. Vijay’s bus was delayed at Muniyappan temple, and later he entered through Munusamy temple. If people had seen him there, the crowd would have dispersed,” DySP Selvaraj explained.
He said that when Vijay’s campaign vehicle moved forward from the designated spot, an EB line was overhead, forcing them to continue forward. “That was when the crowd crush began,” he added. Police blamed the two accused for delaying the campaign bus, preventing it from moving ahead, and thereby worsening the situation.
Further, the government counsel questioned TVK: “If an extraordinary situation arises, the campaign should be stopped. Why was it not done?” They maintained that if Vijay had arrived at the scheduled time of 3 pm instead of being over seven hours late, the incident would not have occurred.
The government counsel cited a stampede in Hyderabad, Telangana, where actor Allu Arjun and others were arrested under similar circumstances.
TVK argued that there was a generator at the spot, which prevented them from stopping as instructed. It blamed the police for not removing road barricades in the middle of the street. “People climbed on them and fell, causing accidents,” TVK claimed.
They added that a stone at the bus stop where the vehicle halted should have been removed. “If it had been cleared, the tragedy would not have occurred,” they argued. The police countered that organisers were responsible for not halting proceedings despite visible overcrowding.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
