Published Jul 10, 2026 | 1:11 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 10, 2026 | 1:11 PM
Madras High Court.
Synopsis: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has allowed the Tamil Nadu government to issue provisional appointment orders to the families of those who died in the Karur crowd crush, pending a final decision on the legality of the scheme.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday, 10 July, cleared the way for the Tamil Nadu government to issue appointment orders to the families of those who died in the Karur crowd crush, but said the appointments would remain temporary until the legal challenge to the government’s decision is decided.
The order came hours before Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s scheduled visit to Karur, where the government had planned to distribute compassionate appointment orders to the victims’ family members as part of the relief measures announced after the tragedy that claimed 41 lives.
A public interest litigation sought to restrain the State from issuing the appointments, arguing that the move lacked a legal framework and could prejudice the ongoing judicial proceedings into the crowd crush.
Refusing to halt the government’s programme, the Bench observed that the Chief Minister’s visit could not be disrupted at this stage and that courts generally do not interfere with policy decisions of the executive. However, it directed that the appointments issued on Friday would remain provisional and be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
The court also took note of concerns over the impact of the government’s decision on regular recruitment through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). Accepting the petitioner’s request, it ordered that the TNPSC be impleaded as a respondent and posted the matter for further hearing on 21 July.
Also Read: Can CM Vijay be stopped from visiting Karur? Here’s what the law says
During the hearing, the Bench questioned why the government should be prevented from providing employment to families that had lost their earning members in the tragedy, observing that financial rehabilitation was a legitimate concern.
Opposing the appointments, the petitioner contended that the victims’ families had already received monetary compensation from the government and political parties. The counsel further submitted that, with proceedings relating to the Karur crowd crush pending before the Supreme Court, granting government jobs at this stage could influence witnesses and affect the course of the investigation.
The petitioner also contended that the decision could set a precedent for similar demands following future accidents and public tragedies. Citing incidents such as the Kumbakonam Mahamaham tragedy, the Dharmapuri bus burning case and the Sterlite police firing, the counsel said no such employment had been granted in those cases.
The counsel further submitted that the appointments did not satisfy the existing norms governing compassionate appointments.
If the State intended to extend such benefits in cases of public tragedies, it should formulate a separate policy rather than make case-specific decisions, the petitioner argued.
