Bengaluru Stampede: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Submit Inquiry Commission's Report In Sealed Cover

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 5) asked the State government to place under sealed cover the report of the judicial inquiry commission with regard to the Bengaluru Stampede which happened in May. 

During the hearing today the court asked the advocate general if the report will be placed before the legislature. AG said he shall take instructions and inform the Court on the same.

The court was hearing a plea by event management firm M/s DNA Entertainment Network Private Limited seeking quashing of one member judicial inquiry report submitted by retired Justice John Michael Cunha regarding the stampede which occurred ahead of an event to celebrate Royal Challenger Bangalore's (RCB) victory at the 2025 IPL Final.

In the previous hearing the firm had told the court that every second its reputation is being tarnished.

After hearing the matter for some time a division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Umesh M Adiga in its order dictated:

"Heard Senior Advocate B K Sampath and Advocate General for State. The arguments have been advanced at some length. After hearing we deem it fit that report of the Commission be placed for perusal of court in sealed cover. On the request of AG, list this matter on August 7". 

Notably, high court's coordinate bench had last month while hearing the suo-motu matter pertaining to the incident asked the state government as to why the documents submitted by it regarding the stampede should continue to be kept in a sealed cover.

'Before I am hanged I should be heard'

During the hearing today, senior advocate B K Sampath appearing for the petitioner firm submitted that the procedure envisaged with respect to the inquiry was not followed.

"We are not given report and our image is tarnished by print, electronic and social media. Commission did not have power to recommend anything it could only say who is at fault," he said. 

On the court's query Sampath said that the PIL has nothing to do with the inquiry conducted by commission. 

Pointing to the terms of reference of the commission Sampath submitted, "Terms of reference nowhere gives power to Commission to say that such and such action be taken against certain person or may recommendation. It was only to ascertain what were the lapses and who was responsible". 

He referred to Section 8 (B) of the Commission of Inquiry Act and submitted, "Before I am hanged I should be heard", adding that as per media reports which carried the commission's report "prejudicial action is recommended against half dozens persons". 

Commission's Report not given, personal hearing denied

Sampath, "When I asked in July stating that we want personal hearing and want copies of deposition and cross examine witness, it (Commission) did not respond to it. The report was out and till now it is not given to us". 

The bench thereafter asked Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, "How has the information gone around?". 

Premature petition

Questioning the maintainability of the petition advocate general Shetty said, "Newspapers should be asked. This petition is an abuse of process of law.The petition is premature because, prayer is to quash the report which is not before lordships. They (petitioner) filed application on July 22, seeking certain documents and next day they filed the petition, they did not wait for even 24 hours for us to give the reply. Based on paper publication the petition has been filed. The report is for our purpose". 

The court however said that the petitioner's only grievance was that under Section 8B Commission of Inquiry Act it was not given a chance for cross examination.

At this stage the Advocate General said that the State shall file its objections to the firm's petition. 

The court then asked, "Will you place the inquiry report before legislature?" to this the AG Shetty said that he will have to seek instructions. 

The court thereafter asked Shetty to place the inquiry commission's report on the court's record under sealed cover. Shetty said that he shall place the same by tomorrow and sought listing of the matter on Thursday. 

Sampath meanwhile said that the firm is being named and shamed everyday. The court asked if there had been any news report regarding the firm after July 25, to which Sampath said that there was some news on the TV shown yesterday. 

Meanwhile the advocate general said that if action is to be taken based on the report a notice would be issued to the petitioner and report will be given.

He further said, "Scope of commission was to find out what happened and preventive measures which could be taken by us. Notice was given before the Inquiry and they replied". 

As Sampath urged for interim relief, the advocate general said that the petitioner should file a "suit against newspaper report" and it cannot get a relief in a Writ Petition. 

Sampath countered this by arguing that "Reputation is central facet to Right to Life". As interim relief the firm has sought that pending disposal of the petition, the commission's repot and any action pursuant to it be stayed. 

"We are seeking the report to see the compliance of Sec 8(B) and 8 (C), it may not be placed before the Legislature...We are seeking to raise a preliminary issue; they (State) are saying the petition is premature," the bench orally said. 

The matter is next listed on August 7. 

Case Title: M/s DNA Entertainment Networks Private Limited AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 22323/2025