The spectacular victory of Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) in the recent Indian Premier League (IPL) after a period of 18 years was truly an occasion to celebrate. As expected, the victory celebrations in Bengaluru attracted a large crowd. Tragically, it ended in a stampede leading to the loss of 11 young persons. The incident shocked the nation.

The next day, the Karnataka High Court registered a suo motu writ petition titled In Re: Stampede on 04.06.2025. The High Court, in its order passed on June 5, deemed it appropriate to take suo motu cognizance of the incidence to ascertain:

(i)   the reasons which led to the tragedy,

(ii)  whether the tragedy could have been prevented,

(iii) what remedial measures need to be taken.

The High Court also noted that it received various e-mails on this issue. After the appearance of the Advocate-General and other advocates, the High Court called for a status report on nine issues:

(i) When and who has taken the decision to hold the victory celebration and in what manner?

(ii) What steps were taken to regulate the traffic?

(iii) What steps were taken to regulate the public/crowd?

(iv) What medical and other facilities were arranged at the venue?

(v) Any assessment was made in advance on the number of people, who may be present at the time of celebrations?

(vi) Whether persons injured were given immediate medical attention by the medical experts at the venue? If not, why?

(vii) How much time was taken to take the injured to the hospitals?

(viii) Whether any SOP has been formulated to manage a crowd of 50,000 and above in any sport event and celebrations of this nature?

(ix) Any permission was sought to organize the event?

While the intention of the High Court is laudable, serious questions arise on the ambit and scope of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts. While there is extensive jurisprudence on the locus standi of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitioner, the nature of the dispute that can be gone into and on other parameters, there is no clear ruling on when a High Court or the Supreme Court can take suo-motu “cognizance” of a tragic incident or any other issue affecting the public. In case of a public tragedy on account of a stampede, or a fire or hospital deaths, the appropriate departments of the State have to take action. This will also include the police when there are deaths. On the principle of separation of powers, the task of determining the cause of the tragedy, determining the persons responsible and deciding the remedial action, is a matter entirely within the executive domain.

Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Public Interest Litigations) Rules, 2015 has a non-obstante clause that enables the High Court to treat any matter or issue as a public interest litigation. Although this power is wide, it must be used sparingly and only in cases where the concerned authorities do not act. For example, if there is unchecked pollution of rivers and no action is taken, it could be a justifiable ground to invoke a provision similar to Rule 16.

It is submitted that the suo motu power should be invoked only when there is inaction or failure on the part of the statutory authorities. If the Court steps in immediately even before the authorities concerned can take action, it leads to a conflict of jurisdiction. In several cases, it may actually delay the entire investigation. The authorities who may have to follow a prescribed procedure, may now have to follow the directions or orders of the High Courts or the Supreme Court.

In any tragic incident that results in loss of lives, several factual issues have to be determined which can best be done only by authorities under the relevant statutory provisions. Every week, some tragic incident happens in a vast country like India, and it will be counter-productive if courts immediately begin to take suo motu cognizance of such incidents.

It is necessary that the Supreme Court or the High Courts lay down clear guidelines as to the circumstances when its suo motu jurisdiction will be exercised. It is suggested that the following principles may be considered:

(i) Suo motu jurisdiction must be exercised very sparingly and only when the statutory authorities do not take action within a specified or reasonable time;

(ii) Where the incident requires investigation on a number of connected issues, it is best left to the authorities to take action, and the courts should refrain from stepping into the executive domain.

(iii) Even petitions filed by public-spirited citizens on such issues should not be entertained. It has become an unfortunate practice that persons immediately invoke the PIL jurisdiction when any tragic or other unfortunate incident occurs.

(iv) Even in suo motu PILs, the courts should, at best, play the role of a catalyst to ensure that the statutory authorities are performed as mandated by the relevant law.

It is hoped that the suo motu jurisdiction is exercised in the rarest of the cases and only when there is a statutory failure. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have often emphasised the importance of separation of powers and the duty of one branch to not encroach upon the territory of other branches. The courts must constantly keep this in mind while invoking their suo motu PIL jurisdiction.

Arvind P Datar is a Senior Advocate.