Karnataka HC Scrutinizes Inquiry Commission's Procedure in RCB Stampede Case, Orders Report in Sealed Cover

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court is currently embroiled in a critical examination of procedural fairness and the scope of judicial inquiry commissions, stemming from the tragic stampede that marred the victory celebrations for the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) cricket team. A Division Bench, comprising Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Umesh M. Adiga, has directed the State of Karnataka to submit the inquiry report by the Justice John Michael Cunha Commission in a sealed cover for the court's perusal.

The direction came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by DNA Entertainment Networks Pvt. Ltd., the event management company for RCB, challenging the legality and findings of the one-man commission. The petitioner alleges gross violations of natural justice and contends that the commission overstepped its mandate, leading to severe reputational damage based on media leaks of the report's contents, which they have officially been denied access to.

Background: A Celebration Turned Tragedy

The case originates from the fatal stampede on June 4, outside Bengaluru’s M. Chinnaswamy Stadium, where an event was organized to celebrate RCB's victory in the 2025 IPL Final. The event, which news sources indicate was arranged by DNA Networks at the request of the State government, resulted in the loss of 11 lives. In response, the State government constituted a one-man Commission of Inquiry headed by retired High Court Justice John Michael Cunha to investigate the incident, identify the lapses, and determine responsibility.

The commission submitted its report to the Chief Minister on July 11. However, while the petitioner, DNA Networks, was not provided a copy despite multiple requests, including under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, details purportedly from the report began circulating widely in the media. These reports allegedly recommended punitive action against DNA Networks, Royal Challengers Sports Pvt. Ltd. (RCSPL), the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), and police officials, forming the basis for the present legal challenge.

Core Legal Challenge: Violation of Natural Justice

The primary thrust of the petitioner's argument, articulated forcefully by Senior Advocate B.K. Sampath Kumar, is the flagrant disregard for the principles of natural justice and the specific procedures mandated by the Commissions of Inquiry (COI) Act, 1952.

Mr. Kumar centered his submissions on Sections 8B and 8C of the COI Act. Section 8B is particularly crucial, as it stipulates that if the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by an inquiry, that person must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence in their defence. Section 8C complements this by granting such persons the right to cross-examine witnesses who have deposed against them.

The petitioner claims they were systematically denied these statutory rights. "When I asked in July stating that we want personal hearing and want copies of deposition and cross examine witness, it (Commission) did not respond to it," Mr. Kumar submitted to the court. He argued that the commission proceeded to finalize and submit its report without affording DNA Networks this fundamental opportunity, a procedural lapse that he contends vitiates the entire report. Evoking a powerful legal maxim, he stated, "Before I am hanged I should be heard."

Exceeding the Terms of Reference

A second significant legal argument advanced by the petitioner concerns the scope of the commission's powers. Mr. Kumar argued that the commission's mandate was limited to fact-finding—specifically, to "ascertain what were the lapses and who was responsible."

"Terms of reference nowhere gives power to Commission to say that such and such action be taken against certain person or may recommendation," he contended.

By allegedly recommending "prejudicial action" against several entities, the petitioner argues the commission acted ultra vires its notified terms of reference. This argument leans on established jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court's ruling in the L.K. Advani case, which emphasizes that quasi-judicial bodies must provide a proper hearing to affected parties before making adverse findings or recommendations.

The State's Counter: Prematurity and Redressal

Representing the State, Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty mounted a strong defence, primarily questioning the maintainability of the writ petition itself. He labeled the petition as "premature" and an "abuse of process of law," arguing that it was improperly founded on media publications rather than the official report, which is not yet in the public domain or before the court.

"The petition is premature because, prayer is to quash the report which is not before lordships," the AG argued, suggesting the petitioner's grievance should be directed at the media outlets. "Newspapers should be asked... The petitioner should file a suit against newspaper report."

The AG further argued that the report was prepared for the government's internal "purpose" and that if any action were to be taken based on its findings, the petitioner would be duly issued a notice and provided with a copy of the report at that stage. When queried by the bench on when the report might be tabled before the state legislature, the AG stated that no decision had been made.

The Court's Stance: Focusing on Procedural Compliance

The Division Bench appeared to narrow its immediate focus to the preliminary issue of procedural compliance raised by the petitioner. The judges orally observed that the petitioner's primary grievance revolved around the denial of the right to cross-examination under Section 8B of the COI Act.

"We are seeking the report to see the compliance of Sec 8(B) and 8 (C)," the bench stated, indicating its intent to first verify whether the statutory procedures were adhered to before delving into the report's substantive findings. This approach sidesteps the AG’s argument on prematurity by positioning the inquiry not as a challenge to the unknown contents of the report, but as a challenge to the known and allegedly flawed process by which it was created.

The bench's decision to call for the report in a sealed cover is a significant procedural step. It allows the court to examine the record for evidence of compliance with natural justice principles without making the report public or available to the petitioner at this stage. This move balances the State's claim of confidentiality against the petitioner's right to challenge a process they deem fundamentally unjust. Interestingly, a coordinate bench, in a related suo-motu matter, had previously questioned the state's penchant for sealed covers, highlighting an ongoing judicial tension regarding transparency.

Reputation, Right to Life, and the Way Forward

The case also brings to the fore the clash between the right to reputation, which Mr. Sampath Kumar argued is a "central facet to Right to Life," and the State's claim that it bears no responsibility for media leaks. The petitioner's plea for interim relief, seeking a stay on the report and any consequent actions, underscores the immediate and ongoing damage they perceive.

The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on August 7, by which time the state is expected to have submitted the sealed report. The court's examination of the commission's records will be pivotal. If it finds that the procedures under Sections 8B and 8C were indeed flouted, it could have serious implications for the validity of the Cunha Commission's report and any subsequent governmental action based on it. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the non-negotiable role of natural justice in any quasi-judicial inquiry, irrespective of the gravity of the incident being investigated.