Supreme Court questions how 2 Madras HC benches heard pleas on Karur stampede; reserves verdict on TVK appeal

The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the propriety of Madras High Court passing two seemingly conflicting orders over the Karur stampede in Tamil Nadu - one declining plea for Central Bureau of Investigation probe (passed by Madurai Bench) and another directing a probe by a Special Investigation Team (passed by the principal Bench)..The Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and NV Anjaria was hearing an appeal filed by Tamil actor Vijay's political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) challenging the October 3 order of the Madras High Court which directed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the Karur stampede of September 27 that claimed 41 lives..The Bench at the outset questioned why the PIL petition before the High Court seeking a special operating procedure (SOP) was entertained by the principal Bench of the High Court when another petition on stampede was already rejected by the High Court's Madurai Bench."In para 3 of the order it is mentioned that writ petition filed before Madurai bench was declined. So this a petition filed in Chennai. The relief was to formulate a SOP. So whether this relief would fall under a criminal WP? It is not about quashing. This is an incident with respect to Karur. Once it is a petition to Karur and Madurai bench was taking cognisance, so why this was entertained (by the principal Bench)? That too for SOP? Principal bench can take cognisance we are not denying. But we want to understand from you," the Court asked.The Court also said that the plea before the principal bench was limited to formulation of an SOP but the High Court went beyond that prayer and ordered a probe by Special Investigation Team (SIT)."What is disturbing us is prayer was for permission to conduct meeting. But High Court saw something else. And then SOP was prayed for. High Court went into SIT. We should limit somewhere," the Supreme Court said.It eventually reserved its verdict after a lengthy hearing. .Once it is a petition on Karur and Madurai bench was taking cognisance, so why this was entertained (by the principal Bench)? That too for SOP?Supreme Court .Background.41 people died in the stampede which broke out after crowds gathered to see actor-turned-politician and TVK founder Vijay speak during a political rally on September 27 at Karur.On October 3, Justice N Senthilkumar passed an order directing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the matter, after expressing that the State's investigation into the case so far has not been up to mark.This was after the single-judge noted that the State was yet to register any criminal case in respect of two accidents that allegedly involved collisions with Vijay's bus amid the stampede. Notably, Vijay was not named in any FIR registered after the stampede. However, following the High Court's October 3 order, a criminal case has reportedly been filed against the driver of Vijay's campaign vehicle in connection with the two hit-and-run incidents flagged by the High Court. The High Court's October 3 order was passed on a petition that sought the introduction of a standard operating protocol (SOP) to be followed during road shows and rallies. "This Court cannot close its eyes, remain a mute spectator, and shrink from its constitutional responsibilities," Justice Senthilkumar had said while ordering the SIT probe.The High Court also strongly criticised the TVK leadership for its conduct after the stampede unfolded..This prompted the appeal by TVK before the Supreme Court. .According to TVK's plea, the High Court suo motu passed extensive observations against the party and its officials though the petition filed before it was for an SOP for rallies. Further, the directions and observations were passed without hearing the petitioner-party.“In a PIL petition seeking the issuance of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for road shows or rallies, without any supporting pleadings or affidavits of fact that relate to the tragedy on 27.09.2025, and without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to be heard and place the correct facts before the Hon’ble Court,” the plea pointed out.The petitioner also said that a pre-planned conspiracy by certain miscreants to create trouble at the site of the rally cannot be ruled out.Video clips as recorded in the order were shown without any verification or authenticity being established leading to a distortion of the facts and serious prejudice against the petitioner, the petitioner submitted..As per the plea, the High Court observed that it was not satisfied with the progress or independence of the investigation by the State police; yet it directed the constitution of an SIT comprising solely of three police officers of the Tamil Nadu Police..The order has caused serious prejudice to the party as the High Court appointed an SIT made up entirely of State Police officers despite the High Court’s own remarks casting doubt on their independence, the plea said.Hence, TVK contended the issue warrants Supreme Court’s intervention and the appointment of a retired judge of the Supreme Court to conduct or oversee the enquiry or investigation..Hearing today.Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for TVK, said that the matter should not have been heard by the principal Bench."This should have been heard by Madurai bench because Madurai bench already entertained petitions. Counsel appear without any affidavit being called. It’s a stampede. It’s a human tragedy. I agree. But to make observations," he said.He also highlighted that the High Court order was passed on a plea for an SOP, and without hearing TVK."I am not even made a party. How are all these observations made without giving a chance to explain? I am not even made a party. There are so many people who come near the bus. One of them was hit. There is no statement. There is no verification. We are not impleaded. It is disposed of on the same day. They (Madras HC) have not seen the investigation. They have not even see the report. There is no status report, there is no case diary," Subramanium said.Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, also appearing for TVK, said that while an SIT probe is welcome, the same should be chaired by a retired judge of the Supreme Court who should also decide as to who would be its members."We need a retired Supreme Court judge to oversee. Let there be a fair investigation. You (High Court) appoint a SIT of state officials after PP and AAG have made allegations against me! All we want is an impartial investigation. If any retired judge is nominated to chair the SIT, let him also have the freedom to constitute the SIT," he said.The Court then proceeded to question the State about the conflict between the two Benches of the High Court entertaining petitions over the same incident."Two things emerge. One. Nature of writ petition. Karur incident. One set of petition was filed for SOP. One in Chennai, one in Madurai. Madurai was division bench. Chennai was single-judge. We have seen the representation also. Where is the need to take the cognisance? And that too it is being taken by division bench? When incident is in Karur?" .Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, said that the Madurai bench did not pass an order on plea for SOP after noticing that the matter was being considered by a single judge of the principal Bench in Chennai."This SOP permission came to Madurai bench because of Karur incident. When division bench is cognisant that single judge is doing… this is a fallacy," the Supreme Court.The Court also noted that the orders from the two Benches were in contrast to each other with the Madurai Bench refusing to interfere with the State Police probe while the principal Bench ordered an SIT probe."Same day different orders have been passed? There is (should be) some propriety for the system," Justice Maheshwari said.Rohatgi said that the State has no axe to grind and it the composition of the SIT was decided by the High Court and not the State."I am not standing on the way of this case. Under the impugned judgement, the court itself appointed an SIT. We never gave any names. We have no axe to grind. There is no reason to doubt the SIT or the officers," he submitted."But they are your officers," the Bench said."The HC picked him out. Mr. Garg is a very senior CBI officer who has come in deputation," Rohatgi replied.Senior Advocate P Wilson, also appearing for State of Tamil Nadu, said that actor Vijay has to take blame of the stampede since the crowd swelled because he did not arrive at the site as per schedule."The entire problem started when instead of coming at the time which as given. They said actor will come in the afternoon. So people started gathering since 7 am," Wilson said..Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, appearing for one of victims of the stampede, said that the State police was responsible for the stampede.He also questioned the probe by the police."40 bodies post mortem was conducted in 4-5 hours late at night. What sort of material were they collecting? Post mortems are normally not conducted during night. And they are saying there’s a one man commission. CM announces it in the morning. On a Sunday the notification was published. The State, if it had been fair enough, would have handed the case to the CBI. They say we want our own officers," he submitted..Senior Advocate Gopal Subramaniam who appeared for TVK, was assisted by advocates Gauri Subramanium, Pranjal Agarwal, Dixita Gohil, Jayavardhan Singh, Raghav Kohli, Adnan Yousuf, Siddhant Juyal, Joel George, and Ankit Malhotra..[Read Live Coverage]