Chinnaswamy stampede: Karnataka High Court reserves verdict in DNA's plea against judicial commission report

The Karnataka High Court has reserved its verdict on a plea by event management house DNA Entertainment Networks challenging a judicial commission report which held the company and its officials among those responsible for the June 4 Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede [DNA Entertainment Networks Private Limited v. State of Karnataka and ors].

A Bench of Justices DK Singh and Tara Vitasta Ganju concluded hearing the matter on Wednesday and reserved judgment.

Senior Advocate BK Sampath Kumar appeared for DNA and maintained that DNA's officials were not given a proper opportunity of hearing before the inquiry commission headed by retired Justice John Michael D'Cunha who made adverse comments against them.

He raised concerns that these findings may now be relied upon by the State in criminal proceedings.

"On one hand, the government says it is only a fact finding enquiry. But on the other hand, they say they have given it to the CID – that is, it is going to be used in criminal proceedings," he said.

Justice Singh, however, observed that there are restrictions on how a commission of inquiry's findings may be used under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.

"(But) see what the government says," Kumar replied.

"Government may say anything but what we (courts) say is the law," Justice Singh replied.

Sampath went on to argue that DNA officials were 'named and shamed' by the State, which has severely affected their reputation. This prompted Justice Ganju to question whether DNA's present writ petition is the appropriate remedy in such a case.

"For that (to compensate for reputational harm), there is remedy available in civil law right? You can't expect the writ court to be concerned about that," Justice Ganju said.

Kumar replied by observing that there are case laws where the Supreme Court has stressed that the right to reputation is important.

"Then file a suit for damages. That entitles you to a suit for damages. It does not entitle you to file writ. You are clubbing your loss of reputation, damages," Justice Ganju proceeded to remark.

Another concern flagged by Sampath was the alleged leak of the inquiry commission report to the media. He highlighted that DNA was yet to get a copy of the report, while extracts of the same were leaked to the media.

"Only the respondents (State and other authorities) could have done it," he added.

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty appeared for the State and countered that the State cannot be blamed for any 'naming and shaming' of DNA officials.

He pointed out that long before the inquiry commission report was finalised, newspapers had been naming DNA officials in connection with the stampede. If anything, he added, the inquiry commission's comments on DNA officials were less adverse than what was carried in media reports, he said.

"Every day, for one month, they (DNA officials) were damned by newspapers. We (State) have not damned them," the AG maintained.

He added that criminal proceedings initiated in connection with the June 4 stampede are independent of the inquiry commission's proceedings. He assured that if the State decides to rely on the inquiry commission's report, notice of the same would first be given.

The Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede unfolded after a crowd of over 3 lakh fans gathered in hopes of meeting the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) team a day after their June 3 IPL cricket win.

The cricket team was supposed to arrive at the stadium on the evening of June 4. However, the victory celebrations were cut short when a stampede occurred at the gates of the stadium, leading to the death of 11 and leaving over 50 people injured.

The State eventually ordered an inquiry into these events by a judicial commission headed by retired High Court judge, Justice John Michael D' Cunha, to discern what led to the stampede and to suggest corrective measures.

In his report, Justice Cunha opined that the stampede took place because the event's organisers were reckless and failed to regulate the entry of crowds into the stadium.

He recommended legal action against RCB, DNA and the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), which makes decisions on renting out the Chinnaswamy stadium. He also recommended legal action against several officials, including police.

DNA challenged these findings, arguing that it was the police and other State authorities who were responsible for not properly managing the entry of cricket fans present outside the stadium, leading to the stampede.

Among other submissions, DNA argued that the haste with which the inquiry report was submitted gave an impression that the State wanted to save its skin. It added that the inquiry commission was a mere "eye wash" to pacify the public and deflect blame by making DNA a scapegoat, it added.

The petition was filed through advocate Suraj Sampath of BK Sampath Kumar & Associates.

The matter was earlier heard in some detail by another Bench of Justices Jayant Banerjee and SG Pandit before it was listed before the Bench of Justices Singh and Ganju.