Police arguing that their anticipatory bail is another political strategy, said, "These were totally reckless and heartless people."
Published Oct 03, 2025 | 5:13 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 03, 2025 | 5:13 PM
Relatives of stampede victims at the Karur Government Hospital.
Synopsis: The petitioners argued that registering a case because he arrived seven hours late was unreasonable. “Is coming late a crime?” they asked, stressing that no police personnel were present at the spot at the time. They added that there was no intention to harm their own party cadres and insisted the incident should not be treated as culpable homicide.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court on Friday, 3 October, reserved its order in the anticipatory bail plea of TVK functionaries, General Secretary N Anand alias ‘Bussy’ Anand and Joint General Secertary CTR Nirmal Kumar, in connection with the criminal case registered after 41 people died in a stampede at actor-turned-politician Vijay’s rally in Karur.
Senior advocate V Raghavachari appeared on behalf of the petitioners, while Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran represented the police in the case before the court.
The matter began with arguments from both the petitioners and the police side.
The petitioners argued that registering a case because he arrived seven hours late was unreasonable. “Is coming late a crime?” they asked, stressing that no police personnel were present at the spot at the time. They added that there was no intention to harm their own party cadres and insisted the incident should not be treated as culpable homicide.
According to the petitioners, the police should have controlled the crowd that gathered to see actor-politician Vijay. They maintained they were not blaming the police but only placing responsibility, and added permission should have been denied if Veluchamipuram was not a suitable venue for the event.
The petitioners argued that the intelligence wing should have assessed the expected turnout.
According to Bar and Bench, Raghavachari contended, “The State owes an explanation why this place was given. It is their job. They have intelligence department. The same spot was found unsuitable for another party (AIADMK).”
The petitioners also claimed that rowdy elements had entered the rally and questioned why lathi charge was ordered when the crowd was merely standing. They pointed out that they had extended cooperation and that no police officer had filed any complaint against them.
The petitioners further alleged that no one was inside the ambulances that came to the spot during the incident — they arrived empty. Petitioners further claimed that some chemical spray had been used, causing smoke, and also alleged that DMK members had predicted “something would happen” before the rally began.
They asked whether cases would be registered against district secretaries or even the chief minister if such a tragedy were to occur at a DMK rally. “This was an accident,” they said, arguing that responsibility for controlling the crowd rests with the state government.
The petitioners also alleged that during the rally, shoes and some chemical substances were thrown, and police resorted to lathi charge without prior warning, which worsened the situation.
“See the Police Act of 1861. Please see on whom the responsibility lies to managing the crowd. The entire responsibility is on the State… It is nobody’s case that the crowd in this case indulged in anything untoward… The police enter and lathi charge. Straightaway lathi charge. The entire mess was created by mishandling by the police,” Raghavachari said.
The police opposed these arguments, pointing out that the petitioners themselves were state-level functionaries who had not sought permission for the rally.
The petitioners countered, asking whether they would invite their own supporters only to take their lives, stressing that the participants were their own people. They added that an FIR can only be registered if there is prima facie evidence of a crime, which, in this case, they argued, was absent.
No attempt-to-murder charges have been filed, and the court noted there was no evidence of intent, but responsibility still rests with the organisers.
“I am not the event organiser. The event organiser has been arrested. If any incident takes place at a DMK rally, can the secretary be arrested? I am saying the event was orderly conducted till the police indulged in lathi charge. The entire issue is why do they rope me? The fact that I (referring to Anand) was an ex-MLA or that I am getting support should not be an intimidatory factor before any ruling party,” Raghavachari replied according to Bar and Bench.
The judge questioned whether the organisers could avoid responsibility altogether. The petitioners’ lawyer responded that while responsibility exists, it could not be stretched unfairly. He said that initially permission had been sought for another venue a day before the rally, but at the last moment, the event was shifted to Veluchamipuram.
He added that if the situation had been deemed unsafe, authorities could have directed them to stop the rally midway.
Police however pointed out that, “As General Secretary, he (Anand) made the request to the media and his cadre that the leader is coming, so the people should be there by 12 o’clock. Has he made a single statement in the media that people should behave responsibly? Not even a single announcement took place that the crowd should stay disciplined. What is the step taken by them? Was there any public announcement by the General Secretary or Join Secretary?”
Answering the court’s query on whether children and women were part of the crowd which gathered during the rally, the State’s lawyer added, “No arrangements were made for them. Not even a single water bottle was available. Police can’t give drinking water, they have to do it… Of course, it is unfortunate incident but these people have not taken care of their own cadres, they absconded from the scene. None of these petitioners were available. Is it expected of the responsible people to do this?”
The court observed that people falling from higher ground triggered the crowd surge, and there were claims that the stampede was deliberately engineered.
Police said they were engaged in crowd control duties at the time, they further alleged that people were made to stand for eight hours without any facilities such as drinking water, which worsened the situation and led to deaths.
It was also noted that several TVK functionaries went absconding after the incident, and that absconding accused can still seek anticipatory bail.
Police arguing that their anticipatory bail is another political strategy, said, “These were totally reckless and heartless people.”
Judges remarked that organisers cannot be treated as above the law and questioned whether the authorities were showing undue leniency towards them.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
