The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the Madras High Court’s handling of petitions connected to the Karur stampede, prompting it to seek a detailed explanation from the High Court’s Registrar General. During Friday’s hearing, a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi said that, upon reviewing the Registrar’s submitted report, it appeared that “something is wrong” within the High Court’s internal processes. The bench directed that the report be circulated among all parties and asked them to file their responses.
This development follows weeks of judicial scrutiny over conflicting orders issued by two different High Court benches regarding the same incident. The Supreme Court had earlier questioned how the principal bench in Chennai issued directions to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising Tamil Nadu Police officers, even though the incident occurred in Karur, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Madurai bench. The petition before the Chennai bench had originally dealt only with drafting a standard operating procedure for political rallies, yet a far broader SIT order was passed.
The September 27 stampede occurred during a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) event, claiming 41 lives and injuring more than 60 people. On October 13, while ordering a CBI probe into the tragedy, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the procedural irregularities in the High Court’s decisions, which now form the basis of its demand for clarification from the Registrar.
During Friday’s hearing, the State’s counsel attempted to defend the High Court’s approach by stating that it frequently passes orders addressing incidental issues. The bench, however, observed that if an institutional practice was flawed, it must be examined. Adding to its concerns, the Supreme Court also questioned why the Tamil Nadu government conducted postmortem examinations at 4 am on the night of the tragedy.
The court said it would consider the State government’s plea seeking to vacate the order directing a CBI investigation at a later stage. It also refused to alter its earlier directions regarding the composition of the three-member Supervisory Committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi. According to the bench, the two IPS officers on the committee may belong to the Tamil Nadu cadre but must not be natives of the state.
The Tamil Nadu government assured the court that its own inquiry commission would not interfere with the CBI investigation and would confine itself to proposing safety measures to prevent similar disasters. The Supreme Court, maintaining its position, declined to modify any part of its interim stay or supervisory directions.
