Madras High Court Mandates Urgent Framing of SOP for Political Rallies Following Deadly Stampede

CHENNAI – In a significant move underscoring the judiciary's role in safeguarding public order, the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to formulate a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the conduct of political meetings and rallies. The directive, issued on October 27, 2025, comes as a direct legal and administrative consequence of the tragic Karur stampede on September 27, which claimed 41 lives during a political campaign for actor-turned-politician C. Joseph Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.

The First Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, has given the state a firm 10-day deadline to produce a draft SOP. The court has made it clear that failure to present the draft by November 11 will result in the judiciary stepping in to issue its own interim directions, potentially mandating a 10-day advance application period for event permits and a 3-day deadline for police to dispose of them.

The order was passed while hearing a batch of petitions, including a writ petition originally filed by TVK before the tragedy, which complained of "onerous" conditions being imposed by the police. Following the Karur incident, several other petitions were filed, all coalescing around the urgent need for a regulatory framework to prevent such disasters in the future.

The Procedural Impasse and Judicial Intervention

The hearing brought to light the contentious issue of procedural delays and alleged arbitrariness in granting permissions for political gatherings. Senior Counsel V. Raghavachari, representing TVK, argued that the tragedy could have been mitigated, if not avoided, had the police granted permission for the September 27 Karur event well in advance, allowing the party sufficient time to implement safety measures. He claimed the permission was granted just a day prior to the event.

Vehemently refuting this, Additional Advocate General (AAG) J. Ravindran contended that TVK had abruptly changed its plans from December to September, submitting its application on September 25 for a rally on September 27.

Chief Justice Shrivastava, steering the court away from a political blame game, astutely observed that the ruling party will invariably face such allegations and must therefore handle these matters with utmost care. He emphasized the dual responsibility at play: political parties must apply for permissions well in advance, and the police must dispose of these applications within a reasonable timeframe. "All this is intended to take care of the public safety and law and order. Come out with an SOP otherwise we'll issue directions," the Chief Justice orally remarked, highlighting the court's primary concern.

The AAG requested more time, citing the need for inter-departmental consultations involving civic bodies, police, health, and fire and rescue services. Acknowledging the complexity, the Bench extended its initial one-week deadline to ten days.

Expanding the Scope: Stakeholder Involvement and Legal Ramifications

The case has attracted the attention of other major political stakeholders. The principal opposition party, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), represented by Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan, filed an impleading petition to be included as a respondent. The AIADMK expressed its intent to provide suggestions for the SOP, recognizing that any new regulations would have a statewide impact on all political activities. The court has decided to consider the petition once it is formally listed.

The Bench also addressed several related legal matters stemming from the Karur incident: * It permitted TVK General Secretary N. Anand (alias 'Bussy' Anand) to withdraw his second anticipatory bail petition in a culpable homicide case booked against him. * It directed that a petition filed by TVK leader Aadhav Arjuna to quash an FIR be listed before a single judge. The FIR relates to an allegedly inflammatory tweet suggesting a youth-led revolt against the government. This was argued by Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi. * A separate writ petition by BJP councillor Uma Anandan seeking a CBI probe into the stampede was closed, as the Supreme Court had already transferred the investigation to the central agency, ensuring an independent inquiry.

The Legal Underpinnings: Balancing Rights and Public Safety

This judicial directive is a textbook example of administrative law in action, where the court compels the executive to fulfill its duty to create necessary regulations. The forthcoming SOP will be a critical legal document that navigates the delicate balance between the fundamental right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution and the state's compelling interest in maintaining public order and safety.

Arguments raised by TVK's counsel regarding the imposition of 23 conditions on their party, while others allegedly faced fewer or none, touch upon the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14. Raghavachari’s suggestion that all conditions be uploaded to an official website for transparency speaks to a broader demand for fairness and predictability in administrative actions.

The court's interim order also provides immediate, practical relief. It clarifies that pending the finalization of the SOP, the state can continue to process applications for meetings in designated areas, with the prohibition only applying to national and state highways. This ensures that legitimate political activity is not brought to a complete standstill.

As the state government consults with various departments to draft the SOP, legal practitioners and political parties will be watching closely. The final document will likely set new precedents for crowd management, liability, and the procedural requirements for organizing public events in Tamil Nadu, with potential ramifications for similar regulations across the country. The case is posted for further hearing on November 11.

Case Title: A Thirukumaran and Another and batch pleas Case No: WP (MD) 28971 of 2025 Court: Madras High Court Coram: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan