Many believe that the Supreme Court’s order could lend official legitimacy to the already existing political propaganda against Tamils.
Published Oct 23, 2025 | 3:00 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 23, 2025 | 3:00 PM
The location where the stampede occurred in Karur.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court recently transferred the investigation of the Karur stampede to the CBI but barred officers of Tamil Nadu origin from the team. Parts of the order ignited debates and raised concerns in Tamil Nadu about whether institutional prejudice against Tamil officials is being normalised.
The Supreme Court recently transferred the investigation into the 27 September Karur stampede, which claimed 41 lives during a political rally by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief Vijay, to the CBI. By means of the same order, the apex court also appointed a three-member supervisory committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi to oversee the CBI probe.
Justice Rastogi was permitted to select two senior IPS officers to assist him. However, there was one condition: The officers must not be of Tamil Nadu origin, though they could belong to the Tamil Nadu cadre.
Following this directive, Sumit Sharan, Inspector General (IG) (G-Branch), BSF Headquarters, New Delhi, and Sonal V Misra, IG (Provisioning), CRPF Headquarters, New Delhi, were chosen as members of the panel.
For decades, the North-South divide has been a recurring issue in Indian politics. Southern states, including Tamil Nadu, have long alleged that the Union government collects disproportionately high taxes from them and redistributes these funds to northern states.
Conversely, there has been a persistent but baseless propaganda narrative from certain quarters that the Southern States wish to secede from India and that Tamils are “anti-national”, a stereotype that resurfaces periodically.
Parts of the Supreme Court’s interim order in the Karur case reignited such debates and raised concerns in Tamil Nadu about whether institutional prejudice against Tamil officials is being normalised.
Recently, during a casual conversation with a friend from Uttar Pradesh, this correspondent asked what he thought about Tamil Nadu and Tamils in general.
Even though he started the conversation by praising Tamil Nadu for its industrial growth and for providing better employment opportunities for women, he added, “I’ve heard that Tamils behave harshly towards non-Tamils.”
He didn’t stop there. He went on to claim that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin had recently said that Tamil Nadu should separate from India, suggesting that such statements were “anti-national” and “against other states”.
However, when checked whether the chief minister had ever made such a statement, there was no evidence or record whatsoever of Stalin having called for Tamil Nadu’s separation from India.
When asked where the friend had seen the statement, he said, “I didn’t see it anywhere — I just heard it from others.”
The petitioners seeking a CBI probe included Panneerselvam Pachaimuthu, father of Krithik — the child who died in the incident — Selvaraj P, husband of another victim, Chandra; GS Mani, a BJP-affiliated lawyer; and S Prabhakaran, an AIADMK-affiliated lawyer.
The TVK, too, filed a separate plea demanding a judicial inquiry headed by a Supreme Court judge.
After reviewing all petitions, a bench of Justices JK. Maheshwari and NV Anjaria criticised previous proceedings in the Madras High Court and its Madurai Bench, and suspended the functioning of two earlier probes — one led by IPS officer Ashra Garg (the Special Investigation Team appointed by the Madras High Court) and another by retired judge Aruna Jagadeesan (appointed by the Tamil Nadu government).
The Supreme Court then ordered a CBI investigation to be supervised by a three-member panel led by Justice Ajay Rastogi. It also stated that the two IPS officers on the committee could belong to the Tamil Nadu cadre but must not be of Tamil origin.
The case has now been adjourned for eight weeks, but this clause excluding Tamil officers has triggered widespread controversy.
Tamil Kamarasan, a scholar, editor and researcher of Tamil intellectual history, said the court order is a serious issue.
“You have already accepted two key prayers—the transfer of the case to the CBI and the formation of a supervisory panel led by a retired Supreme Court judge. You have even granted the judge the authority to select the officers. But saying ‘no Tamil officers should be part of it’ is deeply problematic,” he argued.
He added that the public already perceives the police and judiciary as inaccessible to ordinary citizens.
“Over the past decade, we’ve seen a steady centralisation of power — a trend even stronger than during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. The constant insistence on CBI probes for everything is part of that. It’s a crucial issue that everyone should be talking about,” Kamarasan said.
The key concern, he explained, is the Supreme Court’s explicit exclusion of Tamil-origin IPS officers from the oversight panel. “That’s a case of institutional bias,” Kamarasan said.
“In India, discrimination against minorities, whether based on language, religion, or ethnicity, has been empirically proven. The existence of systemic bias has been documented repeatedly.”
Citing examples, he added, “After 1984, Sikh judges and Punjab police officers were considered untrustworthy, and that institutional distrust lasted for years. Today, we’re seeing a similar pattern emerging against Tamils.”
Retired IAS officer G Balachandran said the order was “deeply regrettable and insulting” to India’s administrative framework.
“It’s an insult to the Indian Civil Service. Whether one is an IAS, IPS, or a judge, we are bound only by the Constitution—not by caste, religion, or region. To say Tamil officers cannot be trusted implies that all Tamil officers in the IPS are inherently biased, which is unacceptable,” he said.
“This order undermines the very neutral character of the All India Services and casts unwarranted suspicion on Tamil officers’ integrity. It’s truly unfortunate,” he added.
According to Kamarasan, the very basis on which the order was issued is hostile to principles of justice.
He pointed out that, in court investigations, the comments of judges during hearings are usually preliminary; what finally matters are the orders passed at the end. He questions the foundations of the interim order issued in this case.
The Supreme Court’s interim order cites the need to ensure a fair and transparent judicial inquiry as the rationale for transferring the probe to the CBI and for constituting a panel headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to supervise the investigation.
Yet the same order also points to two principal reasons for suspending the earlier probes: The way the Madras High Court and its Madurai Bench handled the case, and the fact that police officers from Tamil Nadu spoke to the media to justify their stance.
“But it seems the order didn’t take into account the situation prevailing in the state at that time. The police then answered in public to reduce doubts and rumours; that explanation was given on that basis. To base an order solely on that and say Tamil officers are therefore unreliable and will not conduct a proper inquiry is not correct,” Kamarasan said.
Given an existing campaign in some parts of North India against Tamils, Kamarasan feared that a decision like this — issued by the Supreme Court — could set a dangerous precedent. “This could become a major problem in the future,” he warned.
G Balachandran, a retired IAS officer, noted, “The Supreme Court certainly has the authority to pass orders. It has the power to transfer an investigation from a state police force to the CBI or another central agency.”
However, Balachandran highlighted a procedural snag, “The Court’s order itself states that individual human-rights claims must be protected. Two persons filed petitions as affected parties; the order rests on those petitions. Above those, a BJP-affiliated lawyer also filed a petition—so where does the complication arise?”
“The Court could have treated this as a public-interest litigation. We have seen PILs taken to investigation even based on postcards. But if it were a PIL, just based on the individual human-rights claims, you cannot simply transfer it to the CBI. So the order appears to rest on the two personal petitions. Yet one petitioner’s wife said her husband filed the case without family’s knowledge, and another petitioner said he has no connection to the case. Thus the very basis of the petitions is contentious,” Balachandran said.
Against this backdrop, issuing an order that implies Tamil officers cannot be trusted is a mistake, he argued. “This paves the way for political propaganda that Tamils are inherently untrustworthy. I know many Tamil officers of great integrity — and I also know non-Tamil officers whose impartiality has been questioned.”
When the Supreme Court issued its interim order, lawyers representing the state government had argued that the single-member judicial commission appointed by the state should not be disbanded. Yet the evening copy of the order specifically suspended both the one-member commission headed by Aruna Jagadeesan and the SIT led by IPS officer Ashra Garg.
“Judiciary should trust somebody,” stressed human-rights activist and lawyer Henri Tiphagne.
He criticised the state for shifting responsibility. “When such an incident occurs, the state government must take responsibility. Instead, they push it onto IAS officers—and that invites criticism” he said.
Even though he has criticism of the state-appointed commission and the government, Henri said the Supreme Court’s order deserves even greater scrutiny.
“The state appoints an independent judge to inquire into the matter—but the Supreme Court expresses doubt about that very judge. If so, must the nation place its trust only in Supreme Court judges?” he asked.
“If a government appoints a commission headed by a retired judge, is that commission not worthy of trust?. There is the National Human Rights Commission and state human-rights bodies; the state has retired judge Mani Kumar on its human-rights commission. Why, then, does the Supreme Court create the impression that only outsiders will conduct a truthful probe?” Henri questioned.
He expressed sorrow that the court’s orders do not appear to reflect the care one would expect toward the 41 people who died.
When the interim order came out, social-media and news conversations immediately turned to whether the decision was a setback for the DMK or a win for the TVK. However, Kamarasan said, the real question should be whether it is a setback for Tamil Nadu.
He believes that no political party in Tamil Nadu treated the exclusion of Tamil officers as a grave issue, when everyone in the state ought to have taken it seriously.
Another controversial element is the transfer of the inquiry from the SIT led by Ashra Garg to the CBI. Ashra Garg served as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the CBI for over five years and has substantial experience; although he hails from Punjab and served effectively in many Tamil Nadu districts since joining the IPS in 2004.
Given his CBI background and local experience, many view him as well-suited to lead the probe; yet the Supreme Court removed the SIT and ordered the CBI to take over, prompting criticism that this goes against cooperative federalism.
“People say CBI is better than the state police. But empirical studies show CBI often performs worse than state police in many cases. They have a backlog: more than 50 percent of their cases remain pending. There are cases outstanding for over 20 years,” Kamarasan noted.
The Central Vigilance Commission’s latest annual report showed 7,072 corruption cases probed by the CBI were pending trial in different courts, with 379 of them pending for more than 20 years.
“Fundamentally, the CBI’s functioning contradicts constitutional principles. After the Centre-state list separation, law-and-order issues are in the state list; states should have primary responsibility. These central agencies were created either to intervene or to suppress state institutions. If you bypass state control, that is improper,” Kamarasain said.
“In my experience, when a case goes to the CBI, it often slows down. The agency faces more pressure and more cases than capacity allows. If something is sensitive and likely to attract criticism of the CBI, they will fast-track only that specific case. Once media attention fades, the case slows down,” Balachandran added.
He believes that an SIT in the state could work faster.
“I faced many such cases in service. You cannot assume that the CBI is inherently more honest and that the state police are dishonest. The court could have allowed the state to form an SIT and placed it under a supervising judge. Instead, transferring the matter to the CBI signals distrust in the state agency,” Balachandran argued.
Henri concurred, “Both an SIT and the CBI are capable institutions. But once an SIT has already been formed to investigate, creating another body and suggesting distrust in that officer — when the SIT head had prior CBI experience — how can that be justified?”
“This order conveys that the judiciary does not care for the victims. There are state and national human-rights bodies; they also have a police force. If needed, additional police resources can be allocated. But removing a sitting inquiry team and saying only an outsider will uncover the truth creates a perception that Tamil officers cannot be trusted — and people sadly understand this as a political judgement against Tamil officials,” he added.
Many believe that the Supreme Court’s order could lend official legitimacy to the already existing political propaganda against Tamils.
A woman from Bihar, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said, “Tamils are good people. But it doesn’t seem like there’s linguistic unity in South India the way we have in the North. In states like Bihar, even though we have different dialects, Hindi unites us. But in the South, every state seems to assert its own language and clash over it.”
At the same time, Pandit Amandeep, a professor from Rajasthan, offered a contrasting view, “Tamils are known for their honesty, discipline, warmth, hard work, and commitment to education—they’re very intelligent people. We don’t take such false propaganda seriously,” he said.
He also added that the Supreme Court’s verdict should be respected, as “the judges must have arrived at their decision after due consideration”.
From the false claim that Chief Minister Stalin called for Tamil Nadu’s separation from India, to the stereotype that South Indians are divided by language, several prejudiced narratives continue to circulate across India.
Against this backdrop, Kamarasan warned that the Supreme Court’s recent order is “extremely dangerous”, as it risks deepening the North–South divide and giving institutional backing to long-standing misconceptions about Tamil Nadu and its people.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
