Key Points

After hearing detailed submissions made by all parties before it, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria asked the Tamil Nadu government to file a counter affidavit in response to pleas filed on behalf of the deceased victim seeking a probe by a central agency, before reserving its decision.

TVK's plea, moved through its General Secretary, Aadhav Arjuna, has challenged the Madras High Court's decision to order a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the Karur Stampede, despite raising doubts over the independence of the state police regarding the investigation.

The plea has also challenged certain adverse observations made by the High Court against the TVK leadership and office bearers regarding their alleged conduct of having abandoned the public and failing to rescue them from the tragic stampede which killed at least 39 people and left 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 unverified allegations made by the Additional Advocate General of Tamil Nadu against TVK and its chief, Vijay. Along with the senior counsels, Advocates Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Rupali Samuel and Yash S Vijay also appeared on behalf of TVK.

The TVK further argued that the High Court made adverse observations and ordered a police-SIT on a plea filed by a private petitioner who had sought the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) regarding political roadshows and rallies. The Tamil Nadu-based party asserted that the High Court, on its own, impleaded TVK as respondents and passed orders without giving any opportunity of hearing to the party.

During the hearing, the top-court questioned why did the Single bench of the Madras High Court in Chennai took cognisance of the matter and passed an order when the case was being dealt with by a Division bench of the High Court's Madurai bench which has the appropriate jurisdiction for Karur, where the stampede occurred.

"We are unable to understand the fact why and in what manner the single judge (in Chennai) took cognisance when a Division bench at Madurai was already cognisant of the issue of formulating an SOP (over rallies and roadshows)", the Court stated.

The top-court bench also affirmed that it will issue a recourse with respect to the tragedy after considering the submissions of all parties before it.

Apart from TVK's plea, the top court also heard a plea filed by the family of a 10-year-old victim who died in the stampede. The family of the deceased victim is seeking an independent probe into the stampede by one central agency.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P. Wilson, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, argued in support of the Madras High Court's decision to constitute a police led SIT probe. In response to TVK's challenge to the High Court's action in constituting an SIT, the senior counsels for the Tamil Nadu government argued that the SIT is ordered completely at the behest of the High Court and the State government has no involvement in suggesting any names or preference as to who would be the leading the said SIT.

Counsel for another petitioner, whose sister and fiance lost their lives in the tragic incident, appeared before the Court and made submissions concerning the conduct of the Tamil Nadu Police during actor Vijay's rally.

The counsel pointed out that, in their press conference, the police appeared to exonerate themselves, claiming that even with a large number of personnel present, such incidents could occur. It was also argued that though the TN government had granted permission for the rally, they now claim that if an unconnected person blocks the road or causes chaos, they bear no responsibility.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of another petitioner and argued against the demands for a CBI probe into the stampede. He contended that the immediate constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a senior and competent officer, Aasra Garg, was an adequate step, and that there had been no suggestion earlier that only the CBI would be the appropriate agency to investigate.

Counsel for one of the victims, however, countered that "it is not a matter of the State's confidence in its police officers, but of the victims' confidence in the investigation."

The victims' counsel further alleged that during the rally, the crowd was peaceful, even when some people threw slippers at the TVK leader; there was no violence. Suddenly, the police began a lathi-charge without provocation or application of mind, the counsel highlighted.

It was further argued that, in the subsequent chaos, the police allowed an unregistered ambulance, bearing a sticker with the name of DMK leader and MLA V. Senthil Balaji, to move into the crowd. The counsel also contended that the police acted negligently by permitting Vijay's vehicle to enter the congested area, which ultimately led to the fatal stampede.

The top court, while hearing arguments by all parties before it, urged the counsels not to make the issue political and fight over it.

"It's not a case of fight of two parties. There shall not be any politics", Justice Maheshwari said.

- ANI