The Karnataka government has placed the full weight of responsibility for the tragic stampede outside M. Chinnaswamy Stadium—which resulted in 11 deaths and numerous injuries—on Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), asserting in court that the organizers failed to follow mandatory legal protocols and acted recklessly in encouraging a massive crowd without proper permissions or planning.
Key Allegations Presented in Karnataka High Court
During a hearing before Justice SR Krishna Kumar, the Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty laid out a damning case against the event’s organizers, highlighting:
-
No Permission Sought:Neither RCB nor BCCI sought formal approval for the victory parade or the celebration at the stadium, despite it being required by law at least 7 days in advance.
-
Uncontrolled Crowd Invitation:RCB’s social media posts allegedly “invited the whole world” without clarifying entry protocols. These posts encouraged fans to “come celebrate,” which the AG argued led to confusion, overcrowding, and ultimately tragedy.
-
Massive Crowd vs Capacity:The stadium holds about 33,000 people, but 3.5–4 lakh gathered at the venue due to unchecked online promotion.
-
Lack of Planning & Infrastructure:No barriers, signage, or crowd control measures were in place. No alternate security or ticketing strategies were implemented for a crowd of that magnitude.
Responsibility Chain
-
The state emphasized that there exists a binding agreement between RCB and BCCI assigning security, gate, and ticketing duties to RCB.
-
Despite earlier claims of a tri-partite agreement (RCB-DNA-KSCA), the AG clarified that BCCI was the actual partner, not DNA or KSCA.
-
The court acknowledged that the organizers cannot deny this binding responsibility.
Accusations Against the Organizers
-
"Unclean hands": The state accused RCB of misleading the court by portraying the event as a government initiative.
-
Publicity Motive: The AG alleged the event was more about self-promotion than fan celebration, and that post-incident conduct of the accused reflected an intent to evade responsibility.
Arrest Legality and Escape Allegations
-
The marketing head of RCB, Nikhil Sosale, has challenged the legality of his arrest.
-
The AG countered, claiming Sosale attempted to flee, with flight tickets booked late at night for next-day departure, and was intercepted at the airport.
-
The state insisted due process was followed in arrests and documentation, with the Central Crime Branch assisting the CID investigation.
Aftermath and Government Actions
-
Judicial and magisterial inquiries have been ordered.
-
Certain police officials were suspended, and administrative replacements made.
-
A CID probe is underway to identify broader lapses and assign criminal accountability.
Petitioners’ Argument
-
Defense lawyers for the arrested individuals argued that employees cannot be held vicariously liable under the IPC for an organization’s actions.
-
However, the court has so far refused to dismiss the existence or enforceability of the agreement that places responsibilities on RCB.
What’s at Stake
This hearing could set a precedent for:
-
How sports franchises are held accountable for public events.
-
Criminal vs corporate liability in cases involving large-scale public mishaps.
-
The evolving standards around event management, fan safety, and the legal responsibilities of private organizers using public infrastructure.
The tragedy has stirred not just legal scrutiny but a larger public debate on crowd management, event accountability, and the ethical responsibility of brands with massive public reach like RCB and BCCI. The High Court’s decision in this case could have far-reaching implications for future mass events across India.
