The High Court at Calcutta has maintained a pending public interest litigation regarding the tragic stampede at the Chorbagan Sarbojonin Durga Puja Pandal that resulted in 19 deaths and 25 injuries on October 17, 2026. A vacation bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi addressed the matter on October 20, 2026, determining that the state government’s ongoing proposal to establish an inquiry commission remains the primary procedural path forward. The court emphasized that it would not currently monitor the administrative process but has kept the petition open to ensure accountability should the proposed inquiry fail to materialize or effectively address the causes of the catastrophe.

The state government has already formally requested the assistance of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, via a communication from the Chief Secretary dated October 18, 2026, to appoint a serving judge to preside over the investigation. The court noted that it is the Chief Justice’s administrative prerogative to decide whether to spare a sitting judge for such a role, balancing the need for an independent inquiry against the severe constraints of judicial manpower within the institution. As of the hearing, the court noted that the institution is operating with 50 judges against a sanctioned strength of 72, with further retirements imminent in late 2026, which would reduce the active bench to 48.

If the Chief Justice determines that a sitting judge cannot be spared, the state government is expected to invoke its authority under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to appoint a retired judge of the High Court to head the inquiry. The court reiterated that the appointment of sitting judges to extra-judicial roles should be restricted to rare and necessary cases to preserve judicial independence and the administration of justice. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in T. Fenn Walter & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. , the bench highlighted the importance of preventing potential conflicts of interest and ensuring that judicial resources are primarily dedicated to addressing the mounting backlog of cases in superior courts.

The allegations brought forth by the petitioner suggest that the stampede was not an unpredictable event but a preventable failure of crowd management. The petition cites several critical failures, including dangerously narrow entry and exit points, a lack of police presence for queue regulation, inadequate lighting, and allegedly irresponsible microphone announcements that triggered a surge in the crowd. Furthermore, the petition highlights a complete absence of an emergency medical response plan at the site, which advocates argue exacerbated the loss of life among the victims, including a seven-year-old child.

In response to the urgency of the matter, the state government provided a detailed set of proposed terms of reference for the inquiry. These terms encompass a broad examination of the incident, including the sequence of events, assessment of crowd capacity versus the venue’s structural safety, and an investigation into the conduct of the event organizers, private security, police, and civic bodies such as the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the Public Works Department. The commission is mandated to identify any negligence, dereliction of duty, or failure in inter-agency coordination that contributed to the tragedy.

The inquiry will further inspect evidentiary records, including CCTV footage, forensic findings, and medical logs, to determine the exact circumstances that led to the panic. A significant portion of the mandate includes recommending concrete safety measures for future Durga Puja celebrations, particularly in the historically congested lanes of North Kolkata. These recommendations are expected to focus on scientifically verified footfall limits, mandatory emergency evacuation plans, and the implementation of standard operating procedures for crowd control and medical readiness in large-scale public events.

The court made it clear that while it is overseeing the legal validity of the proposed inquiry, it will not monitor the day-to-day operations of the commission. Once the investigation is concluded, the report will be submitted to the state government, which is responsible for taking follow-up action based on the findings. By keeping the petition pending, the High Court has effectively ensured that it retains the jurisdiction to intervene if the inquiry proves insufficient or if systemic failures remain unaddressed.

The proceedings underscore the tension between public safety and the scale of cultural events in densely populated urban centers. The court’s cautious approach balances the immediate necessity of uncovering the truth behind the stampede with the long-term need to maintain the independence and efficiency of the judiciary. All parties have been granted liberty to address the court once the inquiry report is finalized, ensuring that the judicial option remains available if the administrative process falls short of its mandate. The matter remains on the board, awaiting further developments regarding the appointment of the chairperson and the subsequent commencement of the probe.