SUPREME COURT EXPRESSES CONCERN OVER MADRAS HIGH COURT FUNCTIONING AFTER REVIEWING REGISTRAR GENERAL'S REPORT IN KARUR STAMPEDE CASE:

In a significant development in the Karur stampede tragedy case, the Supreme Court on Thursday expressed deep concern over the functioning of the Madras High Court after examining a detailed report submitted by its Registrar General. A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi observed that certain practices within the High Court appeared irregular and unacceptable. The bench described the contents of the report as indicative of something fundamentally amiss in the manner in which the High Court had dealt with the matter. The court directed that copies of the Registrar General’s report be provided to all counsels appearing in the case and sought their written responses before proceeding further. The bench made it clear that the practices revealed in the report could not be considered appropriate.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny stems from its earlier unease, expressed during previous hearings, about the way the Madras High Court intervened in the aftermath of the deadly stampede that occurred on 27 September 2025 at a political rally organised by actor-turned-politician Vijay’s party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), in Karur, Tamil Nadu. The incident claimed 41 lives.

The apex court had previously questioned two specific aspects of the Madras High Court’s orders. First, it sought an explanation as to how the principal seat of the High Court in Chennai could constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) consisting solely of Tamil Nadu Police officers when the incident took place in Karur, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench. Second, the court wondered how such a far-reaching direction to form an SIT could be issued in a writ petition that originally sought only the formulation of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for political rallies.

Pursuant to those concerns, the Supreme Court, while passing an interim order on 13 October directing a CBI probe, had specifically asked the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to submit a report explaining the circumstances under which the Chennai Bench entertained and decided the matter in that manner. Thursday’s proceedings were centred on that report. During the hearing, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, attempted to defend the High Court’s practice by submitting that courts in Tamil Nadu often pass orders on matters incidental to the main relief sought. The bench, however, indicated that if a prevailing practice was erroneous, it could not be justified merely because it was followed routinely.

The court also rejected an oral request to delete or modify the word “native” used in paragraph 33 of its 13 October judgment. In that judgment, to ensure impartial oversight of the CBI investigation, the court had constituted a three-member Supervisory Committee headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice Ajay Rastogi and directed him to select two senior IPS officers (not below the rank of Inspector General) from the Tamil Nadu cadre but who were not natives of the State. The bench declined to alter the wording.

Additionally, the court issued notice on a fresh petition filed by one K.K. Ramesh and heard a mention by the State regarding the functioning of a State-appointed Judicial Commission. The State assured the bench that the Commission would not interfere with the ongoing CBI investigation and would limit itself to framing recommendations for preventing such tragedies in future. However, the Supreme Court chose not to vacate or modify its earlier interim stay on the Commission’s proceedings.

To recap the sequence of events: on 13 October, the Supreme Court transferred the investigation into the 27 September stampede to the Central Bureau of Investigation, citing prima facie political overtones and statements by senior State police officials that could raise doubts about the impartiality of a State-led probe. The Tamil Nadu government has since filed a counter-affidavit blaming the tragedy on reckless and negligent actions by TVK organisers and sought vacation of the CBI probe order. The matter remains pending, with the Supreme Court continuing to monitor both the investigation and the procedural conduct of the Madras High Court in the case.