1. A public interest litigation seeking a judicial inquiry into a fatal stampede at a religious pandal due to alleged negligence and public safety management failures. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3612
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge, CJ, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J
Tapas Kumar Dey – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
WPA(P) 507 of 2026
Important Points
The appointment of a sitting judge to a Commission of Inquiry is an administrative decision of the Chief Justice, which should be exercised sparingly to preserve judicial independence and avoid hindering the administration of justice, as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Commissions of Inquiry - Appointment of Sitting Judges - Guidelines for appointment - The appointment of sitting judges to head commissions should be limited to rare occasions of paramount national interest to prevent undue burden on the judiciary and maintain the prestige and independence of the court. (Para 7)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - Stampede Investigation - Terms of Reference - The court may record the proposed terms of reference for an inquiry commission constituted by the State Government to ensure a comprehensive investigation into negligence, mismanagement, and failures of public safety. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether a Commission of Inquiry should be constituted to investigate the stampede at Chorbagan Sarbojonin Durga Puja Pandal and whether a sitting judge should be appointed to head it.
Result: Petition kept pending.
(B) Public Interest Litigation - Stampede Investigation - Terms of Reference - The court may record the proposed terms of reference for an inquiry commission constituted by the State Government to ensure a comprehensive investigation into negligence, mismanagement, and failures of public safety. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether a Commission of Inquiry should be constituted to investigate the stampede at Chorbagan Sarbojonin Durga Puja Pandal and whether a sitting judge should be appointed to head it.
Result: Petition kept pending.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Suman Sengupta, Anit Kr. Das, Ashish Dutta, Zoaib Rauf, Rahul Kr. Singh
For the Respondents: Billwadal Bhattacharyya, D.N. Ray, Anindya Basu, Pratip Mukherjee, Indradeep Pal, Bikash Kumar Sriwastav
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Suman Sengupta, Anit Kr. Das, Ashish Dutta, Zoaib Rauf, Rahul Kr. Singh
For the Respondents: Billwadal Bhattacharyya, D.N. Ray, Anindya Basu, Pratip Mukherjee, Indradeep Pal, Bikash Kumar Sriwastav
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought an inquiry by a retired judge for safety lapses, while the state argued it already initiated a statutory inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 10 , 11 )
3. The court observed that the state is the appropriate authority to constitute an inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act and it is for the Chief Justice to decide on sparing a sitting judge. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 14 )
4. The appointment of a sitting judge to a commission is at the discretion of the Chief Justice, which must preserve judicial independence and minimize burdening the judiciary. (Para 7 , 9 )
5. The petition is kept pending with liberty to address the court after the commission concludes its report and the government's inquiry is completed. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. What are the guidelines for appointing a sitting High Court judge to a Commission of Inquiry?
Appointments should be rare and made only for paramount national interest. The Chief Justice must consider judicial workload, the independence of the judiciary, and potential for public criticism to ensure the dignity of the court is upheld. (Para 7 )
7. Who determines whether a sitting High Court judge will head a Commission of Inquiry?
The decision to spare a sitting judge for such work rests solely with the Chief Justice of the High Court on the administrative side, considering the judge's availability and the current bench strength. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. Can the High Court monitor the proceedings of a Commission of Inquiry constituted by the state?
No, the court clarifies that it will not monitor the inquiry. It is for the state government to act under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and handle the report tendered to it. (Para 14 )
Order
(Per Court)
1. This Petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation Petition, has been filed in the Court today. This Court (Coram: Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge, Chief Justice and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) is holding Court sitting as a Vacation Bench. Since the learned Senior Advocate Shri Bandyopadhyay made a request that the matter is urgent, this case is taken up on the Board today by preparing a supplementary cause list dated 20.10.2026.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to a tragic stampede that occurred in Chorbagan Sarbojonin Durga Puja Pandal, on 17/10/2026, resulting in the death of 19 persons and injuring about 25 persons. He submits that a retired Judge may be entrusted with the task of heading a Commission to investigate into the alleged critical failures, which have been narrated in the Memo of the Petition, more particularly, below paragraph 6, which reads as under:
“6. It is stated that the said tragedy was not an act of God but a direct consequence of gross negligence, mismanagement, and a blatant disregard for public safety by the Respondents. Eyewitnesses and initial reports point to several critical failures which are categorised as follows:
a. The entry and exit gates of the pandal were dangerously narrow and wholly inadequate to handle the massive and forseeable crowd.
b. There was a conspicuous absence of adequate police personnel to regulate the flow of the crowd and implement orderly queue management.
c. The area was poorly lit, which contributed to the panic and confusion when the rush began.
d. A wrong and irresponsible announcement made over the microphone by the organisers triggered a sudden surge in the crowd, leading directly to the stampede.
e. There was a complete lack of an emergency response plan, with no ambulances or medical teams readily available at the site to provide immediate aid to the victims.
3. Shri Bandyopadhyay has seriously canvassed that a tragic and preventable loss of life in the stampede at Chorbagan Sarbojonin Durga Puja Pandal on 17.10.2026. It is specifically averred in the Memo of the Petition that the Petitioner is not seeking any relief against any private individual or any of the newspapers, who have been arrayed as Respondents at Serial Nos. 9 to 12. It is averred in the Petition that the tragedy could have been prevented and as the stampede has resulted in the death of 19 individuals, including a 7 year old child and has left about 25 persons with serious injuries, an inquiry needs to be conducted in the said incident.
4. The learned AAG, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Senior State Government Counsel, bring it to our notice that the State Government has already sought the assistance of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, vide letter dated 18/10/2026, under the signature of the Chief Secretary, for sparing a serving Judge to head the enquiry commission.
5. The Registry of this Court, on instructions of the Chief Justice, has placed the said letter dated 18/10/2026 (2 pages) before us, wherein the details of the unfortunate incident of stampede have been narrated. An annexure (2 pages) to the above stated communication contains proposed Terms of Reference for Inquiry into the Chorbagan Stampede dated 17.10.2026. We have perused the Terms of Reference that have been proposed by the State Government before the Office of the Chief Justice. Suffice it to state that the State Government has already declared its decision to appoint an Inquiry Commission to inquire into the said incident dated 17.10.2026.
6. The learned AAG and the Government Pleader submits that, now this Petition need not be dealt with. It is for the Chief Justice to spare a serving Judge of the Court to head the Inquiry Committee, which the Government would be constituting in its capacity of being the ‘Appropriate Government’ under Section 3(1)(b) and sub-sections under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The State Governme
