TVK rally stampede: Supreme Court censures Madras HC single-judge for hearing issue already listed before Madurai Bench

The Supreme Court on Monday criticised Justice N Senthilkumar of the Madras High Court for entertaining petitions related to the Karur stampede in Tamil Nadu in absence of the jurisdiction and for ordering a probe by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) without any formal prayer for it [TAMILAGA VETTRI KAZHAGAM Versus P.H. DINESH AND ORS].

At least 41 people died during a political rally of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) on September 27. The top court today ordered Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the incident and urged a Committee headed by Justice Ajay Rastogi to supervise the investigation.

In the decision, the Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and NV Anjaria also questioned how Justice Senthilkumar at the principal seat of the Madras High Court had expanded the scope of the writ petitions which were filed only for guidelines and standard operating procedure for rallies and road shows in the aftermath of the incident.

Interestingly, the single-judge had entertained the petitions though a Division Bench of the Madurai bench of the High Court was already seized of the matter.

There was no occasion for the single-judge of the main seat to entertain the petitions without orders of Chief Justice when petitions seeking probe into the incident were pending before Madurai bench, the Court observed.

"Pertinently, Karur Stampede falls within the jurisdiction of Madurai bench where cases were filed," the Supreme Court noted.

The Court also noted that TVK and its members were not made party to the petitions by the single-judge and yet, observations were made against the party without affording any opportunity of hearing.

"The judgment is completely silent about how single-judge arrived at such conclusion, what material was perused by the Court. The said order merely refers to the submissions made by the Additional Advocate General," it said.

The Court went on to observe that such petitions ought to have been dealt with by a Division Bench as a Public Interest Litigation.

The judgment was rendered on a plea by TVK, led by Tamil actor Vijay, who moved the top court challenging the Madras High Court direction for Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the incident. It argued that High Court suo motu passed extensive observations against the party and its officials though the petition filed before it was for an SOP for rallies.

During a hearing last week, the Court had questioned the propriety of Madras High Court passing two seemingly conflicting orders over the Karur stampede in Tamil Nadu - one declining plea for Central Bureau of Investigation probe (passed by Madurai bench) and another directing a probe by a Special Investigation Team (passed by Justice Senthilkumar at the principal bench).

Today, the Court highlighted the "stark contradiction" in the approach of two benches of the same High Court. Madurai bench had said the investigation was at nascent stage and no flaw in police probe was brought to its notice.

"In stark contradiction, the single judge [at principal bench] while dealing with the matter of constitution of SIT, suo motu without referring to any document or raising any reason for dissatisfaction with the progress of investigation... Such recourse prima facie indicates lack of sensitivity and propriety to deal with such matters, creating multiplicity of proceedings for the reason best known to the Hon'ble judge," the Court said.

Considering its observations, the Court asked the High Court Registrar General to explain how a plea seeking SOP could be categorized as a criminal writ petition.

Background

41 people died in the stampede which broke out after crowds gathered to see actor-turned-politician and TVK founder Vijay speak during a political rally on September 27 at Karur.

On October 3, Justice Senthilkumar passed an order directing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the matter, after expressing that the State's investigation into the case so far has not been up to mark.

This was after the single-judge noted that the State was yet to register any criminal case in respect of two accidents that allegedly involved collisions with Vijay's bus amid the stampede. 

Vijay was not named in any FIR registered after the stampede. However, following the High Court's October 3 order, a criminal case has reportedly been filed against the driver of Vijay's campaign vehicle in connection with the two hit-and-run incidents flagged by the High Court. 

The High Court's October 3 order was passed on a petition that sought a standard operating protocol (SOP) for road shows and rallies.

"This Court cannot close its eyes, remain a mute spectator, and shrink from its constitutional responsibilities," Justice Senthilkumar had said while ordering the SIT probe.

The High Court also strongly criticised the TVK leadership for its conduct after the stampede unfolded.

This prompted the appeal by TVK before the Supreme Court. In the plea, TVK sought an independent investigation into the stampede. Other litigants had also filed similar petitions related to the incident. Considering the nature of the incident, the Court today decided to handover the probe to CBI.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramaniam, who appeared for TVK, was assisted by advocates Gauri Subramanium, Pranjal Aggarwal, Jayavardhan Singh, Raghav Kohli, Adnan Yousuf, Siddhant Juyal, Joel George, and Ankit Malhotra.

Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram also appeared for TVK.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P Wilson appeared for State of Tamil Nadu.