The Madras High Court on Friday constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the deadly stampede that occurred during a political rally by actor-politician Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party in Karur on September 27, which claimed 41 lives. The court also delivered sharp criticism of Vijay and his party for their handling of the tragedy.
Court Forms SIT Under Senior IPS Officer
Justice N Senthilkumar ordered the formation of the SIT, which will be headed by Inspector General of Police Asra Garg. Garg, a 2004 batch IPS officer who currently serves as Inspector General of the North Zone in Tamil Nadu, has extensive experience in high-profile investigations, including leading the probe into the Ryan International School murder case in Gurgaon. The court directed the Karur Police to immediately hand over all case documents related to the stampede to the investigation team.
Sharp Criticism of TVK Leadership
The High Court delivered scathing remarks about Vijay and his party’s conduct during and after the tragedy. Justice Senthilkumar condemned what he called the “poor quality” of leadership displayed. The judge criticized the party for showing “no remorse” and for “abandoning” the site after the incident.
“The court cannot close its eyes nor remain a mute spectator or shirk its responsibility. The entire world has witnessed the sequences and consequences of the event,” Justice Senthilkumar observed. He described the deaths as a “huge man-made disaster” and questioned why only two people had been arrested so far in connection with the tragedy.
The Petition and Investigation Request
The court’s order came in response to a petition filed by PH Dinesh, a Chennai resident who had sent a representation to state authorities seeking guidelines for road shows and proper investigation into the incident. Dinesh accused the Tamil Nadu government of attempting to shield Vijay, questioning why the actor’s name was not included in the First Information Report (FIR) despite his presence at the event.
The petitioner sought directions for authorities to frame Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for political rallies and to stop granting permissions for such gatherings until proper safety measures are made mandatory. The petition claimed the incident was “not a simple accident but happened due to careless planning and complete negligence by organizers”.
Government Response and New Restrictions
The Tamil Nadu government informed the Madras High Court that it will not permit political rallies on highways until comprehensive SOPs are formulated. The Additional Advocate General stated that no political gatherings will be allowed until these safety protocols are established. The court emphasized that rallies should not be conducted near national or state highways and that essential facilities including drinking water, medical services, ambulances, toilets, and proper exit routes must be provided.
Details of the Tragedy
The stampede occurred on September 27 evening at Velusamypuram in Karur during Vijay’s political rally. The tragedy unfolded when Vijay’s convoy arrived nearly seven hours late, at around 7 PM instead of the expected noon arrival time. Large crowds had been waiting throughout the day without adequate water facilities or proper crowd management measures.
According to eyewitness accounts, the fatal crowd crush happened around 7:45 PM when supporters surged toward Vijay’s bus to catch a glimpse of the actor-politician. The situation was worsened by Vijay’s failure to turn on his customary spotlight inside the vehicle, prompting crowds to press closer to the tinted windows. The death toll included at least nine children, 18 women, and 13 men, with most victims in their 20s and 30s. Police have registered nine FIRs against TVK members in connection with the incident. The Madras High Court also rejected anticipatory bail pleas filed in the court.
Compensation Announced
Multiple authorities have announced compensation for victims’ families. Chief Minister MK Stalin announced Rs 10 lakh for each deceased person’s family and Rs 1 lakh for the injured. Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced Rs 2 lakh from the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund for families of the deceased and Rs 50,000 for the injured. Vijay himself announced Rs 20 lakh compensation for each family that lost a loved one and Rs 2 lakh for those injured.
Court Rejects CBI Probe Demands
While ordering the SIT investigation, the Madras High Court dismissed multiple petitions seeking a CBI probe into the incident. The Madurai bench of the High Court rejected these pleas, stating that the petitioners were not affected parties and that the investigation was still in its initial stages. The court noted that politicians filing such petitions could not “convert this court into a political arena”.
Legal Provisions Relied On
Section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Verbatim Text: “Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
Relevance: This provision is invoked against the TVK functionaries for the deaths during the stampede, as their acts may have been done with knowledge that crowd mismanagement could cause death without specific intent to kill.
Section 110 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Verbatim Text: This section deals with “attempt to commit culpable homicide.”
Relevance: Applied where organizers’ negligent acts constituted an attempt at culpable homicide through reckless crowd management.
Section 125(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Verbatim Text: “Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others… where grievous hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.”
Relevance: Covers the negligent acts of event organizers that endangered lives through inadequate safety measures and crowd control.
Section 223 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Verbatim Text: This section addresses “disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.”
Relevance: Applicable if the organizers violated conditions imposed by authorities for conducting the rally.
Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992
Verbatim Text: “Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any property and thereby causes damage or loss to such property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards… shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”
Relevance: Invoked for property damage that occurred during the stampede incident.
Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Verbatim Text: Empowers magistrates to pass orders “prohibiting the gathering of four or more people in a specified area” in “urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.”
Relevance: The legal basis for restricting political rallies until SOPs are formulated to prevent similar incidents.
Article 19(1)(b) of Indian Constitution
Verbatim Text: “All citizens shall have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.”
Relevance: The fundamental right that must be balanced against public safety concerns when regulating political gatherings.
What Does Case Law Reveal About Judicial Interpretation?
Judicial interpretation in this area has evolved to establish clear standards for criminal liability in cases involving public safety during political gatherings. The Madras High Court’s response to the Karur incident reflects established principles from landmark cases regarding negligence and public duty.
The Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005) case established crucial precedents for criminal negligence that apply beyond medical contexts to public safety situations. The Supreme Court held that criminal liability requires a higher threshold than civil negligence – there must be “gross negligence” rather than mere error in judgment. This principle directly applies to event organizers, where criminal charges require proof that safety failures went beyond ordinary negligence to constitute reckless disregard for public safety. The court emphasized that criminal liability arises only when defendants act “in disregard of life and safety,” a standard clearly met in the Karur stampede where basic crowd control measures were allegedly absent.
The P.B. Desai vs. P.C. Singhi case, resolved by the Supreme Court in 2016, demonstrated how courts scrutinize the direct causal connection between defendant’s actions and resulting harm. The court’s emphasis on establishing clear causation links is relevant to event safety cases, where organizers can be held liable only when their specific failures directly contribute to injuries or deaths. This precedent supports the legal principle that event organizers bear responsibility for foreseeable consequences of inadequate safety measures.
Dr. Anindya Gopal Mitra vs. State of West Bengal (1993) established that while authorities can impose reasonable restrictions on public gatherings, complete prohibition is not permissible. This case supports the Madras High Court’s approach of allowing political rallies in designated areas while requiring SOPs rather than blanket bans. The judicial interpretation balances constitutional rights with safety requirements, permitting regulation but not complete suppression of political expression.
These cases collectively establish that courts expect event organizers to meet professional standards of care, similar to how medical professionals are held to clinical standards. The judicial interpretation requires clear evidence of gross negligence or reckless disregard for safety before imposing criminal liability, while simultaneously emphasizing that constitutional rights to assembly must be preserved through reasonable regulatory frameworks rather than prohibitive restrictions.
