Vijay, TVK Flag and Supreme Court 
Litigation News

DMK moves Supreme Court to restrain CM Vijay, TVK ministers from commenting on Karur stampede probe

The plea says that victim families are material witnesses in the Court-monitored CBI probe ongoing in the case. The plea calls for safeguards to be put in place before any direct interaction with the families.

S N Thyagarajan

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has moved a plea before the Supreme Court seeking to be impleaded in a case concerning the 2025 Karur stampede at a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) rally, where 41 persons were killed and 142 were injured [TVK Vs PH Dinesh].

The application has been filed by DMK organising secretary RS Bharathi. Bharathi has sought directions against TVK chief and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay and other TVK ministers including Aadhav Arjuna, Bussy Anand and CT Nirmal Kumar.

He has asked the top court to restrain them, and others connected with the case, from making public statements on the merits of the pending investigation into the Karur stampede.

The plea also seeks safeguards before the State government distributes benefits, government orders or compassionate appointments to the families of those who died or were injured during the stampede.

The application cites media reports that the Vijay-led Tamil Nadu government may provide government jobs to one person from each of the 41 families affected by the Karur stampede.

It adds that Vijay had earlier distributed ₹20 lakh each to families of deceased victims and ₹2 lakh each to injured victims while criminal proceedings were pending.

The DMK has said it has no objection to welfare measures for the victims’ families. But it has highlighted that these families are also material witnesses in the ongoing case. 

The case is now being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is under the supervision of a committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi, following the Supreme Court's orders.

In these exceptional circumstances, where the investigation is still pending, any direct interaction with such material witnesses by persons connected with the subject matter of the investigation or by the political executive presently in office... has the potential to give rise to an apprehension, whether real or perceived, regarding the fairness and independence of the investigative process,” the plea states.

Moreover, Bharathi has raised concerns about statements made sitting TVK Minister Aadhav Arjuna about the Karur tragedy. In this regard, reference is made to a speech allegedly made by Arjuna on July 2. According to the English translation annexed to the plea, Arjuna allegedly said Karur was “a very important town” and that there was “a score to settle”.

You laid your hands on our leader in Karur, didn’t you? You laid your hands on our people, Stalin,” the translation reads.

The plea says that such statements were made to create a perception that the DMK and its leadership were responsible for the incident.

The application also relies on an earlier counter affidavit filed by the then-DMK led Tamil Nadu government which had blamed the tragedy on factors such as under-declaration of crowd strength by TVK organisers, delayed arrival of the TVK leader, lack of basic amenities and an alleged disregard of police instructions.

Bharathi has now urged the Supreme Court to direct the CBI to take action against Arjuna, since his comments amounted to influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence and impeding the probe.

The DMK leader also pointed out that Arjuna himself is an accused in the criminal case registered in the wake of the Karur stampede.

The application has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Anuradha Arputham.

Margins to Access Project invites applications for Catalyst for Change Fellowship 2026- 2027

Does CAG have the power to audit Delhi's discoms? Supreme Court to decide

Madhya Pradesh High Court fines lawyer ₹2.5k for false claim of attending trial court hearing

Preity Zinta moves Bombay High Court against deepfakes, AI generated content

Civil judge must decide panchayat election disputes, not 'prescribed authority' under Sikkim Panchayat Act: Sikkim HC

SCROLL FOR NEXT