SC Questions Dual Madras HC Hearings, Reserves Verdict on TVK Plea

Supreme Court Questions Dual Madras High Court Hearings on Karur Stampede; Reserves Verdict on TVK Appeal

Apex Court puzzled over how two different benches heard same case on Karur tragedy

Actor Vijay’s party challenges Madras High Court’s SIT order, cites bias concerns

Families of victim’s demand justice as SC weighs fairness of state-led investigation

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 10, 2025:

The Supreme Court of India has reserved its order on petitions related to the Karur stampede tragedy, which claimed 41 lives and injured more than 60 people during a rally organized by actor-turned-politician Vijay’s party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), on September 27, 2025. It has also raised serious questions about judicial procedure after learning that two separate benches of the Madras High Court heard petitions related to the Karur stampede tragedy. The apex court expressed concern over how such parallel hearings were allowed, calling it an “extraordinary situation.”

The petitions, filed by TVK, victims’ families, and other parties, challenge the Madras High Court’s October 3 order that directed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of senior Tamil Nadu police officers to probe the incident. Petitioners argue that a state-led SIT cannot be impartial, given the involvement of state authorities in granting permissions and managing the event.

The Tragedy in Karur

The rally in Karur was one of TVK’s first major political gatherings since its launch. Reports say:

Around 27,000 people attended, nearly three times the expected 10,000.
The crowd had gathered to receive welfare kits and hear Vijay’s speech.
A seven-hour delay in Vijay’s arrival reportedly worsened the situation.
Overcrowding and poor crowd control led to a stampede, killing 41 and injuring dozens.

The tragedy shocked Tamil Nadu and sparked widespread debate about political rallies, safety protocols, and accountability.

Madras High Court’s Order

After the incident, the Madras High Court (Principal Bench, Chennai) took suo motu cognizance and ordered:

Formation of an SIT headed by Inspector General of Police Asra Garg, with two other senior officers.
Monitoring of the probe by the High Court.
Critical remarks against TVK, noting that Vijay and his team allegedly left the venue without showing remorse.

The Madurai Bench of the High Court, meanwhile, dismissed separate pleas seeking a CBI probe, saying there was insufficient material to justify transferring the case to a central agency.

TVK’s Petition in Supreme Court

TVK, through its General Secretary Aadhav Arjuna, moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s SIT order. The party argued:

The SIT, composed entirely of Tamil Nadu police officers, cannot be independent.
The High Court’s adverse remarks against Vijay and TVK were made without giving them a chance to be heard.
A pre-planned conspiracy by miscreants to disrupt the rally cannot be ruled out, and only an external probe can uncover the truth.
The Court should appoint a retired Supreme Court judge to oversee the investigation.

Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium and C.A. Sundaram, appearing for TVK, stressed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by constituting an SIT in a petition that was originally filed only to frame Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for political rallies.

Victims’ Families and Other Petitions

Families of victims also approached the Supreme Court, demanding:

A fair and transparent probe.
Enhanced compensation beyond the ₹10 lakh announced by the Tamil Nadu government and the ₹20 lakh per family announced by Vijay personally.
Accountability from both the organizers and the administration.

Separately, BJP leaders from Tamil Nadu, including Uma Anandan and G.S. Mani, filed petitions seeking a CBI investigation, arguing that the state police cannot investigate its own lapses.

Supreme Court Hearing

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria heard the matter on October 10, 2025. Key points from the hearing:

The Court questioned how the Principal Bench in Chennai could pass orders when Karur falls under the Madurai Bench’s jurisdiction.
Justice Maheshwari asked whether a petition seeking SOPs for rallies could have been converted into a criminal writ petition leading to an SIT order.
The bench noted that the High Court’s remarks against TVK and Vijay may have been premature and could prejudice the investigation.
The Court heard arguments from TVK, victims’ families, the Tamil Nadu government, and other petitioners.

After detailed submissions, the Supreme Court reserved its order, asking the Tamil Nadu government to file a counter-affidavit in response to the victims’ pleas.

Political and Public Reactions

TVK: Maintains that it followed all safety guidelines and that the tragedy was caused by mismanagement and possible sabotage. Vijay has announced ₹20 lakh compensation for each victim’s family and ₹2 lakh for the injured.
Tamil Nadu Government: Defends the SIT, saying it can conduct a fair probe.
Opposition Parties: Demand a CBI probe and accuse both TVK and the state administration of negligence.
Public Sentiment: Families of victims continue to demand justice, while civil society groups call for stricter safety norms for political rallies.

Why This Case Matters

The Karur stampede case is significant for several reasons:

Public Safety: It highlights the urgent need for clear SOPs for political rallies and mass gatherings.
Judicial Discipline: Raises questions about how different benches of the same High Court handled related petitions.
Fair Investigation: Tests whether state police can impartially investigate cases involving political and administrative lapses.
Political Accountability: Could shape the future of Vijay’s political career and TVK’s credibility.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court’s reserved order will decide:

Whether the probe stays with the state-appointed SIT.
Whether it is transferred to the CBI or monitored by a retired Supreme Court judge.
Whether the High Court’s critical remarks against TVK should be expunged.

The verdict will be crucial not only for the victims’ families but also for the future of political accountability in Tamil Nadu.

Conclusion

The Karur stampede tragedy has become a test case for how India balances public safety, political accountability, and judicial oversight. With 41 lives lost, the demand for justice is strong. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming order will determine whether the investigation remains with the Tamil Nadu police or moves to an independent body.

For the families of victims, the hope is simple: that the truth comes out and such a tragedy never happens again.