New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a detailed probe into the tragic stampede that occurred on September 27 at Velusamypuram in Tamil Nadu’s Karur district, which claimed 41 lives during a public rally of actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Vijay.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice N.V. Anjaria issued the order, stating that the CBI investigation will be overseen by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi. The three-member SIT will also include two Tamil Nadu-cadre IPS officers belonging to other states, ensuring impartiality in the inquiry. The CBI has been directed to submit monthly progress reports to the SIT.
SC Pulls Up Madras HC for Procedural Irregularities
The apex court expressed strong disapproval of how the Madras High Court’s Chennai Bench handled the case, which originally sought the creation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for political rallies but was later registered as a criminal writ petition. The Bench observed that the Chennai Bench had no jurisdiction over the Karur incident, as the district falls under the Madurai Bench, and therefore, the petition should have been dismissed at the outset.
The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Madras High Court’s Registrar General on how such a procedural lapse occurred.
Conflicting Orders Questioned
Earlier, while reserving its verdict on the appeals filed by TVK and others challenging the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court had expressed concern over conflicting directions issued by two benches of the Madras High Court — one in Madurai declining a CBI probe and another in Chennai ordering an SIT investigation. “We fail to understand how this could have happened,” the Bench remarked, questioning the coordination between the two benches.
Petitions Under Scrutiny
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing before the court, pointed out that two petitioners seeking a CBI inquiry claimed their names were used without consent and had informed the Supreme Court Registry accordingly. Justice Maheshwari assured that this issue would also be examined, and if necessary,
