The Supreme Court bench observed that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, and questioned how it was taken up for hearing by the principal bench in Chennai.
Published Oct 10, 2025 | 2:15 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 10, 2025 | 4:23 PM
Supreme Court of India. (Wikimedia)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court on Friday heard five separate petitions related to the stampede in Karur during a political meeting of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam chief Vijay. The apex court observed that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and questioned how it was taken up for hearing by the principal bench in Chennai. Furthermore, it heard arguments for and against a CBI probe into the tragedy.
The Supreme Court on Friday, 10 October, heard five separate petitions related to the Karur stampede, which claimed 41 lives and left 146 others injured during a political meeting of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief Vijay.
The bench comprising Justices JK Maheswari and NV Anjaria heard appeals and submissions from multiple petitioners, including victims’ families and the TVK, all seeking independent investigations into the incident, including a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
TVK filed an appeal seeking to set aside the Madras High Court’s order and to constitute an inquiry commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the tragedy.
The party argued that despite following the restrictions imposed on their campaign events, the high court had made unwarranted remarks against actor-turned-politician Vijay, who was not even a respondent in the case. TVK’s counsel contended that the high court’s observations were defamatory and politically motivated, and that an independent probe was essential to ensure fairness.
Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing TVK, told the Supreme Court that the high court had made several adverse comments about Vijay “without justification.” He emphasised that Vijay had left the venue under police protection, contradicting the state’s claim that he had “fled the scene”.
Subramanium further pointed out that the Madras High Court concluded a video clip showing supporters arriving on two-wheelers, even though no such case was before the court. He argued that the high court’s remarks questioning “what kind of leader Vijay was” were unwarranted and defamatory.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench observed that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, and questioned how it was taken up for hearing by the principal bench in Chennai.
Senior advocate Ariyama Sundaram, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that as per procedure, a case outside the jurisdiction of the principal bench can only be heard with the Chief Justice’s permission — but no such permission appeared to have been obtained.
The bench also questioned whether actor Vijay or his party were respondents in the original case before the high court. TVK’s counsel clarified that neither Vijay nor TVK were a respondent, yet the court had made severe and unnecessary remarks against them.
The second petition, filed by BJP member and advocate GS Mani, challenged the Madras High Court order, alleging that the tragedy was politically motivated. Mani sought a CBI investigation or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by sitting or retired Supreme Court judges, covering all officials from the police, district administration, electricity department, and event organisers.
Three other petitioners, Selvaraj (husband of victim Chandra), Panneerselvam (father of a 13-year-old victim), and Prabhakaran, also filed petitions demanding a CBI probe.
Panneerselvam, who lost his son in the tragedy, told the court that he had no confidence in the government inquiry commission or the SIT constituted by the Madras High Court. He alleged that a senior police official (ADGP) had briefed the media the very next day, effectively pre-judging the matter and casting premature blame.
He argued that such statements and the mutual accusations between officials demonstrated bias and lack of neutrality, making a CBI investigation necessary to uncover the full truth.
TVK counsel reiterated that the police prevented the party’s leaders from visiting the injured, and that the high court made critical remarks even though the party and Vijay were not respondents to the case. The counsel alleged political bias in the ongoing investigation and demanded a court-monitored probe led by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The counsel added that since the TVK is emerging as a major political force in Tamil Nadu, it required a fair and transparent inquiry free from political influence, urging the Supreme Court to ensure justice through a special probe panel.
The Tamil Nadu government informed the Supreme Court that the SIT constituted by the Madras High Court was led by an officer with prior CBI experience. The government clarified that the officer was appointed by the high court and not recommended by the state.
Presenting its version, the government said the tragedy occurred because actor Vijay’s scheduled noon arrival was delayed, causing crowd congestion and panic.
The state informed the court that 41 people had died and 146 were injured in the incident.
When the apex court bench asked whether any cases were pending regarding the need to frame guidelines for public campaigns and roadshows, the Tamil Nadu government responded that a case was pending before the Madras High Court.
Further, the judges questioned how the high court could issue fresh directions in related petitions when such a case was already pending. They also asked why the case seeking campaign regulations was registered as a criminal petition.
The government’s counsel explained that since the Karur tragedy involved loss of lives, the court registrar had classified it as a criminal matter and listed it before the appropriate bench for hearing.
One of the petitioners’ counsels informed the Supreme Court that the investigation had made little progress so far and that victims’ families were still awaiting justice. He requested the court to ensure a fair and comprehensive inquiry into the tragedy.
After hearing extensive arguments from all sides, the Supreme Court bench adjourned the matter till 2 pm the same day.
When the hearing resumed, Tamil Nadu’s senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi responded to one of the petitioners, Panneerselvam, the father of 13-year-old victim Prithik, who had requested a CBI investigation.
Singhvi said the government fully understood the grief of the bereaved father and the victims’ families. However, he clarified that the state government had not appointed the officer leading the Special Investigation Team (SIT). “The Madras High Court itself appointed senior officer Asra Garg, a highly capable officer who had previously served in central investigation agencies like the CBI,” he said.
He added that the state believed the existing SIT, headed by such an experienced officer, should continue the probe. Singhvi stressed that while the father’s pain was deeply understood, transferring every such case to the CBI merely because a petitioner was affected would set an impractical precedent.
He argued that Tamil Nadu officers were most familiar with the ground realities, and the investigation under a competent officer should be allowed to proceed. Singhvi also pointed out that the CBI already faces a heavy workload and limited resources, so only exceptional cases should be referred to the agency.
Representing the Tamil Nadu government, Singhvi said not all cases can or should be handed over to the CBI. “Only rare and extraordinary cases warrant such transfers as per Supreme Court constitutional rulings,” he said. He added that an inquiry commission led by retired Justice Aruna Jagadeesan was already examining the Karur incident.
The state also noted that the father of the deceased boy had not approached the Madras High Court earlier. Directions had been issued in another petitioner’s case, and a competent SIT was already in place under a capable officer. Therefore, a CBI probe was unnecessary, Singhvi argued.
In response, the counsel for the petitioner said it was insensitive for the state to suggest that the father should have approached the High Court while mourning his son and conducting the final rites.
The petitioner clarified that he was not questioning the integrity of the SIT but noted that since the officer was from the Tamil Nadu police, there were reasonable doubts about impartiality. “Only a neutral and independent central agency could bring out the full truth,” he said.
He also accused the police of failing to protect his son during the event and said he had no faith in an investigation conducted by the same administration responsible for the lapse.
Another petitioner argued that the stampede did not occur spontaneously but was triggered by police action and external interference. He said that even after a slipper was thrown at actor Vijay during the event, there was no commotion in the crowd. “The panic began only after the police allegedly began a lathi-charge without any apparent reason,” he claimed.
He further alleged that an ambulance without a registration number had entered the crowd moments before the chaos and that anti-social elements were deliberately brought into the event.
The petitioner also said that some of the water bottles thrown during the incident carried the image of DMK MLA Senthil Balaji, suggesting possible political involvement.
He added that soon after the incident, senior IAS and IPS officers held a press conference declaring that neither the government nor the police were at fault. Karur MLA Senthil Balaji also addressed the media, defending the administration. These coordinated responses, the petitioner argued, created suspicion of attempts to pre-emptively absolve the government and police.
The petitioner questioned why post-mortem examinations of the 41 deceased were conducted hastily overnight, with doctors summoned urgently, calling it unusual and suspicious.
He alleged that these steps appeared intended to show that the government and police bore no fault, rather than to identify the actual culprits. He insisted that only a CBI investigation could ensure an impartial and thorough inquiry.
The bench noted that, according to Supreme Court procedure, post-mortem examinations can be conducted at night if district authorities grant special permission.
Another petitioner, Prabhakaran, submitted that a social media post was made around 3:15 p.m. by a DMK member warning of a possible crowd surge at Vijay’s campaign event, just before the tragedy occurred. He claimed the person who posted it was associated with former minister Senthil Balaji, suggesting prior knowledge of the incident.
After hearing extended submissions from all sides, the Supreme Court bench adjourned further proceedings in the matter.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
