The Supreme Court has reserved its order on various petitions filed by Vijay’s TVK (Tamil Nadu Vetri Kazhagam), two families of the deceased victims and other parties regarding the investigation into the Karur stampede that took place during party chief and actor Vijay’s rally on September 27.
After hearing detailed arguments from all the parties, a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and NV Anjariya asked the Tamil Nadu government to file a counter affidavit before reserving its verdict in response to the petitions filed by the deceased victim seeking investigation by a central agency.
The TVK, through its general secretary Aadhav Arjun, has filed the petition, challenging the Madras High Court’s decision to conduct a Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigation into the Karur stampede, while raising doubts over the independence of the state police in connection with the investigation.
The petition also challenges certain adverse observations made by the High Court against the TVK leadership and office-bearers, saying they abandoned the public and failed to protect them from the tragic stampede that left at least 39 people dead and many others injured.
Senior advocates Gopal Subramaniam and Aryama Sundaram, appearing for TVK, argued that the manner in which the High Court ordered the SIT was based on unsubstantiated allegations made by the Additional Advocate General of Tamil Nadu against TVK and its chief Vijay. Along with senior advocates, advocates Dikshita Gohil, Pranjal Aggarwal, Rupali Samuel and Yash S. appeared for TVK. Vijay was also present.
TVK further argued that the High Court made adverse observations and ordered the police-SIT on a petition filed by a private petitioner, which had sought to prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) with respect to political road shows and rallies. The Tamil Nadu-based party claimed that the High Court had suo motu made TVK a respondent and passed the order without giving the party any opportunity of being heard.
During the hearing, the top court questioned why a single bench of the Chennai-based Madras High Court took cognizance of the case and passed the order, when the matter was being dealt with by a division bench of the Madurai bench of the high court, which has appropriate jurisdiction over Karur, where the stampede took place.
“We are unable to understand the fact as to why and in what manner the single judge (in Chennai) took cognizance while a division bench in Madurai was already aware of the issue of framing SOPs (on rallies and road shows),” the court said. The top court bench also confirmed that it will issue a relief in connection with the tragedy after considering the submissions of all parties. Apart from TVK’s plea, the top court Also heard the petition of the family of a 10-year-old child killed in the stampede. The family of the deceased is demanding an independent investigation into the stampede by a central agency.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P. Wilson, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, supported the Madras High Court’s decision to have a police-led SIT investigation. In response to the challenge by TVK to the High Court decision constituting the SIT, senior lawyers for the Tamil Nadu government argued that the SIT has been constituted solely on the orders of the High Court and that the State Government has no interference in suggesting the name or preference of any person to head this SIT. Counsel for another petitioner, whose sister and fiancee had died in the tragic incident, appeared before the Court. and made arguments regarding the conduct of Tamil Nadu Police during actor Vijay’s rally.
The lawyer said that in the press conference the police seemed to be proving their innocence and were claiming that such incidents could happen despite the presence of a large number of policemen. It was also argued that although the Tamil Nadu government had given permission for the rally, they are now claiming that they have no responsibility if any unknown person blocks the road or spreads anarchy.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for another petitioner and argued against the demand for a CBI probe into the stampede. He argued that the immediate formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Aasra Garg, a senior and competent officer, is an adequate step, and there was no suggestion earlier that the CBI alone would be the appropriate agency to investigate.
However, the lawyer of one of the victims countered this by saying that “It is not a matter of the state’s trust in its police officers, but of the victims’ trust in the investigation.” The victims’ lawyer further alleged that the crowd was peaceful during the rally, even when some people threw slippers at the TVK leader, there was no violence. The lawyer asserted that suddenly the police resorted to lathi charge without any provocation or using discretion. It was further argued that in the chaos that followed, the police allowed an unregistered ambulance bearing a sticker of the name of DMK leader and MLA V. Senthil Balaji to enter the crowd. The lawyer also argued that the police were negligent by allowing Vijay’s vehicle to enter the crowded area, which ultimately led to the stampede.
After hearing the arguments of all the parties, the apex court urged the lawyers not to politicize the issue and not to fight over it.