Calcutta High Court Rejects Interim Relief in Petitions Over Messi Event Chaos at Salt Lake Stadium

Overview of the Case

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul, has dismissed prayers for interim relief in three consolidated Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed under Writ Petition (Civil) numbers 555, 556, and 557 of 2025. The petitions, led by Suvendu Adhikari and others, challenge the State of West Bengal's handling of a high-profile fiasco during the "G.O.A.T. India Tour 2025" event on December 13, 2025, at Vivekananda Yuva Bharati Krirangan (Salt Lake Stadium) in Kolkata.

The event, organized by a private entity (GOAT India Trip), featured Argentine football legend Lionel Messi as the central attraction. Tickets were sold at exorbitant prices, ranging from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 10 lakhs, with allegations of unauthorized use of the State Emblem and VIP access for political figures. Dissatisfied attendees, unable to get a clear view of Messi, rioted, damaging stadium property including the Astroturf. This led to a suo motu FIR at Bidhannagar Police Station, an apology from West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on social media, and the formation of an enquiry committee and Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The petitioners sought an impartial probe under court supervision, possibly by a central agency like the CBI, citing financial irregularities, money laundering concerns under Sections 3 /4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and the inadequacy of the state-led mechanisms.

Key Arguments from Petitioners

Senior counsels including Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Sabyasachi Chatterjee, and Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya argued that the state-sponsored nature of the event—evidenced by government seals on tickets, police NOCs, and ministerial involvement like the erection of a 70-foot Messi statue on a public road—warranted a higher level of scrutiny.

• Invalidity of Enquiry Committee : They contended that under Section 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 , the committee's appointment required a state legislative resolution (absent as the House was not in session) and a gazette notification, neither of which was properly followed.
• Biased SIT Investigation : The SIT, comprising junior IPS officers, was deemed incapable of fairly probing senior officials like the DGP, Commissioner of Police, and Principal Secretary, Youth Affairs and Sports. Petitioners highlighted potential conflicts and invoked the doctrine from Brijesh Jha v. Union of India (2017 SCC OnLine Cal 899) for court-monitored enquiries.
• Financial and Organizational Lapses : Allegations included ticket black-marketing, sponsorship laundering, inflated vendor payments, and unauthorized state involvement. Refund for ticket buyers and stadium restoration were also demanded, citing Ramachandraiah v. M. Manjula (2025 SCC OnLine 893). They urged lifting the corporate veil on the organizer under Section 212(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 , and central agency involvement due to Union List entries (8 and 43 of the 7th Schedule).

Photographic evidence and social media posts were cited to suggest collusion between organizers and government officials, framing the incident as an international embarrassment for Kolkata.

State's Defense and Organizer's Position

Represented by Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, the State of West Bengal defended the actions as prompt and lawful:

• Validity of Mechanisms : A gazette notification dated December 13, 2025, appointed the committee (headed by a retired High Court judge, with the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary). Section 11 of the 1952 Act allows government appointment without assembly resolution, as affirmed in P. Janardana Reddy v. State of A.P. (2001) 6 SCC 50, where the Supreme Court rejected "hyper-technical" objections.
• Police Role Limited : The Bidhannagar Police issued an NOC with conditions on ticketing left to organizers. Sale and distribution were private, with no state involvement in revenue. CRPF provided Z-category security to Messi, explaining close access.
• Impartiality of SIT : Doctrine of necessity applies for probing superiors; SIT members had no event involvement. The FIR focused on property destruction, with broader probes ongoing.
• Petition Flaws : Affidavits were criticized as unverified and politically motivated, lacking personal knowledge (e.g., blank verification paragraphs). Similar events in Hyderabad, Mumbai, and Delhi proceeded without complaints pre-incident.

The organizer's counsel, Indranil Roy, noted logistical challenges (organizer in custody) and emphasized successful events elsewhere via online platforms like Zomato. They denied state collusion, attributing issues to crowd dissatisfaction.

Court's Reasoning and Precedents Applied

The bench analogously heard the matters on admission, finding an arguable case but rejecting interim relief. Key excerpts from the judgment underscore restraint:

• On the enquiry committee: " Section 11 of Act of 1952 is wide enough which gives powers to the State Government to appoint a committee... In P. Janardana Reddy , the Supreme Court held that there is no prescribed form or particular manner for the appropriate government to express its opinion."
• On SIT and investigation: "Investigation is the statutory right of the police... Directions to transfer to CBI can only be in rare and exceptional cases where present investigation is vitiated" (citing State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571; Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 5 SCC 802).
• Broader principles: No interference at preliminary stage without evidence of bias ( Common Cause v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667). Petitions dismissed as "publicity interest" due to affidavit deficiencies, per State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402.

The court directed affidavits in opposition within four weeks and listed the matter for February 16, 2026. It also instructed the ACJM, Bidhannagar, to facilitate the organizer's legal representation.

Final Decision and Implications

The Calcutta High Court upheld the enquiry committee and SIT's probe, refusing to stay investigations or mandate CBI involvement at this nascent stage. No refunds or restorations were ordered interimly.

This ruling reinforces judicial deference to state investigative autonomy in PILs, especially under the 1952 Act, while signaling scrutiny of unverified public interest claims. For Kolkata, it underscores accountability for public event mismanagement amid financial allegations, potentially influencing future high-profile sports tours in India. The ongoing probes may reveal deeper issues, but the decision cautions against premature court intervention.