Karur Stampede: Supreme Court Questions TN Govt on Rally Permit, Midnight Post-Mortems

The apex court grilled the state on why permission was granted for the TVK rally despite prior safety concerns and how 41 post-mortems were conducted in four hours at night. The bench also raised serious questions about the judicial propriety of the Madras High Court's conflicting orders.

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Friday, October 10, reserved its order on a series of petitions concerning the tragic Karur stampede, after a lengthy hearing where it directed sharp questions at the Tamil Nadu government regarding its role in the lead-up to and aftermath of the incident that claimed 41 lives. A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria also expressed deep concerns over the judicial process followed by the Madras High Court, which issued conflicting orders from two different benches on the same matter.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions, including one from actor-politician Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, challenging a Madras High Court order that constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) composed entirely of state police officers. Both TVK and other petitioners, including victims' families, are seeking a more independent probe, with demands ranging from a CBI investigation to an inquiry monitored by a retired Supreme Court judge.

The hearing brought the Tamil Nadu government's administrative and investigative actions under intense scrutiny, focusing on two critical areas: the initial permission granted for the rally and the "unbelievable" speed of the post-mortem examinations.

State's Discretion on Trial: Why Was TVK Permitted Where AIADMK Was Denied?

A central theme of the petitioners' arguments was the alleged partiality of the state administration. Senior Advocate Raghavachari V, representing one of the victims, highlighted a stark inconsistency. He submitted that the rival AIADMK party had previously been denied permission to hold a rally at the very same location in Karur, with police citing the "narrow space" and potential for a mishap.

Justice Maheshwari seized on this point, directly challenging the state's counsel, Senior Advocate P Wilson. "Why was permission granted when there was an order [to not give permission until SoP is finalised]?" the judge asked, questioning the rationale behind allowing the TVK event to proceed at a venue previously deemed unsafe.

Raghavachari argued this discrepancy points to state culpability. "If it's going to be crowded for AIADMK, it should have been crowded for TVK. My humble submission is, the entire fault lies with state police," he contended. He further alleged the stampede was orchestrated, claiming that DMK members had predicted a tragedy earlier that day and that police allowed a miscreant to throw a shoe into the crowd, sparking the chaos.

'40 Post-Mortems in 4 Hours?': Court Casts Doubt on Investigation

The bench expressed profound skepticism over the state's handling of the post-mortem examinations. Petitioners alleged that the autopsies of over 30 victims were conducted between 10:30 PM and completed by the early morning, with cremations following at 4 AM.

"You conducted postmortem within four hours [at midnight?] How many [postmortem] tables do you have? Two?" a visibly concerned Justice Maheshwari asked the state's counsel. The question underscored the court's doubt about the possibility of conducting thorough forensic examinations under such conditions, which is crucial for evidence collection in any criminal investigation.

Wilson responded that the District Collector granted permission for the night-time procedures due to immense pressure from grieving families demanding the release of the bodies. He stated that doctors from nearby districts, including 220 doctors and 165 nurses, were mobilized. However, when Justice Maheshwari pressed whether these were forensic experts, Wilson stated he would file a detailed affidavit to address the allegations, which he claimed were being raised for the first time.

Judicial Propriety Questioned: "Unable to Understand How This Order Was Passed"

Beyond the state's actions, the Supreme Court dedicated significant attention to what it termed a "fallacy" in the Madras High Court's handling of the case. The bench noted that the Madurai Bench had declined a plea for a CBI probe, while the Principal Bench in Chennai, hearing a separate petition seeking only the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for rallies, went beyond the scope of the prayer to order an SIT investigation.

"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 bench observed.

Justice Maheshwari expressed his bewilderment at the procedural overlap and conflicting outcomes. Addressing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, he said, "We are unable to understand how this order was passed?... In my experience of over 15 years as a judge, a single bench holds back if the division bench has taken cognizance." He emphasized the need for "propriety for the system," noting that two benches of the same court passed contrasting orders on the same day regarding the same incident.

A Unified Demand for an Independent Probe

Despite being on opposing sides of the High Court's adverse remarks, both the TVK party and the victims' families voiced a shared distrust in the state police's ability to conduct a fair investigation.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, for TVK, argued that the High Court made "politically damning" observations against Vijay and his party without even making them a party to the case or hearing their side. He stressed that Vijay was escorted away from the scene by the police to prevent the situation from escalating.

Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, also for TVK, stated their core demand: "To have an SIT with the officers only of the State, we have a problem. Let there be a fair investigation. We are wary of the State. All we want is an impartial investigation. Let a retired judge of the Supreme Court preside over it, we have no problem."

This call for an impartial inquiry, free from state influence, was echoed by the victims' counsel, who argued that the state's hasty actions, from the suspicious post-mortems to the immediate establishment of a one-man commission, pointed towards a potential cover-up that only the CBI could effectively investigate.

As the bench reserved its orders, the case hangs in the balance, carrying significant implications for state accountability in public tragedies, the standards for ordering independent investigations, and the rules of judicial conduct within the high courts. The final verdict will be closely watched for its potential to reshape the contours of investigation and administrative responsibility in Tamil Nadu and beyond.