The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to deliver its much-awaited verdict on October 13 regarding a plea that calls for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the tragic Karur stampede that occurred during actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief Vijay’s political rally. The catastrophic incident, which took place on September 29 in Tamil Nadu’s Karur district, claimed the lives of 41 individuals and left around 60 others injured. The tragedy has since sparked intense public debate over the adequacy of crowd management, the accountability of the event organisers, and the impartiality of the ongoing investigation.
During Friday’s hearing, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria, stated that it would pronounce its order on the plea seeking a CBI inquiry into the incident. The apex court also directed the Tamil Nadu government to submit its official response regarding the demand for a central investigation. The petition, filed by Vijay’s political outfit, challenges a previous order of the Madras High Court that denied the request for a CBI probe and instead directed that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) be constituted to handle the matter. The TVK has expressed apprehension that the SIT, being under the influence of the state machinery, might not conduct the probe in an entirely neutral manner.
The bench also raised procedural questions concerning the jurisdiction of the case. Justice Maheshwari inquired why a single-judge bench of the Madras High Court’s Chennai division took up the case and issued the order when Karur — the location of the stampede — falls under the jurisdiction of the court’s Madurai bench. This jurisdictional anomaly, according to the Supreme Court, requires further clarification to ensure procedural propriety in such a sensitive matter.
Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, appearing on behalf of the TVK, strongly criticised the manner in which the High Court handled the petition. He contended that the court had pronounced its judgment without adequately hearing the party’s submissions. According to him, the plea filed in the High Court was intended only for limited relief and not for a full-fledged judgment. Subramaniam further urged the apex court to direct the Tamil Nadu government to establish a detailed and uniform protocol for organising political roadshows to prevent such tragedies in the future. He dismissed the claim that actor Vijay had not been made a party to the case, calling it entirely “false and misleading.”
Subramaniam added that although his client did not oppose an investigation per se, it was crucial that such an inquiry be conducted in an impartial and transparent manner. He stated that he would have no objection if the probe were to be carried out under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge, which would ensure neutrality and credibility. Supporting this argument, senior advocate Aryama Sundaram, also representing TVK, proposed that the investigation be conducted by a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, thereby maintaining independence from political or administrative pressures.
On the other hand, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, maintained that the state had acted fairly and without bias. He clarified that the government had not interfered in the case and that the High Court itself had formed the SIT. “The state has no vested interest in this matter, and there is no reason to suspect the integrity of the SIT members,” Rohatgi asserted. Justice Maheshwari then asked whether the officers in the SIT were from the Tamil Nadu cadre. Rohatgi replied that the officers were selected by the High Court and that one of them, Officer Garg, was a senior CBI officer currently on deputation, ensuring professional credibility.
Another lawyer representing the Tamil Nadu government, P. Wilson, provided a detailed account of how the tragic stampede unfolded. He explained that the sequence of events began when actor Vijay failed to arrive at the venue at the initially scheduled time. “He had announced he would come in the afternoon, so people began gathering as early as 7 a.m. The growing crowd became uncontrollable, and with inadequate crowd control measures, the situation spiralled into chaos,” Wilson told the court.
The Karur rally, intended to be a major political outreach event for Vijay’s recently launched party, turned disastrous when the overcrowded venue saw panic and confusion spread rapidly among attendees. Eyewitnesses reported that people began collapsing due to suffocation and heat, leading to a deadly stampede that forced Vijay to abruptly halt his speech.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, questions have been raised about event management failures and whether the local administration took sufficient precautions. As public outrage continues to mount, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming verdict on October 13 is expected to be a defining moment in determining whether the investigation will remain with the state’s SIT or be handed over to the CBI.
Meanwhile, actor-turned-politician Vijay is expected to visit the families of the deceased and injured victims on October 17. The visit will be held under strict security protocols with stringent crowd control arrangements to avoid any repetition of the tragic events that unfolded in Karur.
