Karur Stampede: Supreme Court Slams Madras High Court; Says Adverse Remarks Passed Against TVK & Vijay Without Hearing Them

The Supreme Court criticised the manner in which a Single Judge of the Madras High Court (Chennai Bench) directed investigation by a Special Investigation Team into the Karur stampede.

The Court noted that the writ petition before the Chennai Bench was seeking the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for political rallies and not SIT investigation. The Supreme Court sought an explanation from the High Court Registrar for registering the writ petition for SOP as a criminal writ petition.

The Court also noted that Karur fell within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench and asked how the Chennai Bench could have directed SIT investigation. Also,  the division bench at Madurai was already considering petitions seeking CBI investigation. Hence, the Supreme Court observed that the single bench at Chennai should not have ordered SIT investigation.

The Supreme Court also noted that the single bench at Chennai passed adverse comments against actor Vijay and his party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) that they abandoned the stampede site and did not express any remorse for the incident.

The Court observed that the Chennai Bench's approach indicated a "lack of sensitivity and propriety."

A bench comprisng Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria passed these observations while directing an investigation into the Karur stampede by the Central Bureau of Investigation and to be monitored by retired Supreme Court judge Ajay Rastogi.

It noted that the single judge of the Madras High Court entertained a petition seeking SoP for the political parties as a criminal writ petition and then extended the scope of prayers by constituting an SIT to investigate the Karur incident when the division bench, at Madurai, in whose jurisdiction Karur falls, refused to entertain a bunch of petitions seeking a CBI probe on the same very day, that is October 3. 

Justice Maheshwari pronounced the order as follows :

"After perusal of pleadings and reliefs, learned Single Judge has suo moto decided to enlarge the scope of the writ petition, stating extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures, even in absence of pleadings and prayer for constitution of SIT. Learned Single Judge made some observations about the Karur stampede. In the writ petition, the TVK and its members were not made party and without joining the necessary parties and affording opportunity, the order impugned has been passed. In result, as per said order, the Court took suo moto cognizance and recorded the finding of non-satisfaction with respect to progress or independence of the investigation and directed for the formation of SIT consisting of the officers of the State."

The Supreme Court noted that the Chennai Bench's order did not explain what materials were considered by it. Only the submissions of the Addl Advocate General are noted by the Court.

"The judgement is completely silent about how learned Single Judge arrived at such a conclusion and what material was perused by the Court. The said order mainly refers the submissions made by the Ld.Additional Advocate General."

The Court also commented on the High Court entertaining the matter when similar issue was pending before the Madurai Bench.

"It is not out of place to observe that the orders passed in the various writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 884 of 2025 were dated 03.10.2025. The order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in WP (MD) No. 27532 of 2025 and batch, taking cognizance of the aforesaid order, made the observation that learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court at Chennai is seized of the matter relating to the formation of SOP in WP Crl. No. 884 of 2025, therefore, refused to consider the prayer for formation of SOP. In our view, where the prayer to form SOP / Guidelines for public rallies affecting general public at large was being examined, however, such petition ought to be dealt with by the Division Bench, registering as public interest litigation in right earnest, and not to be dealt with by a Single Bench."

The Court remarked that it's strange that in the above two writ petitions, the single judge of the main seat of Madras High Court extended the scope of the case beyond the pleadings. It is also not forthcoming as to what was the need to increase the multiplicity of the proceedings with respect to the same Court and subject matter, seeking a similar prayer.

"Pertinently, the Karur stampede falls within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench where, writ petitions, seeking investigation by the CBI and also formation of SIT were filed and heard by a Division Bench on the same date. Such being the case, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge of the Main Seat of the Madras High Court to entertain WP Crl. No. 1000 of 2025, without orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court in that regard. On a query being put, how WP Crl. No. 1000 of 2025 was filed, referring the Karur stampede, before the Main Seat of the Madras High Court, in reply it was submitted that WP Crl. No. 884 of 2025 for the formation of SOP/guidelines before the Main Seat was pending, therefore, the Main Seat may have entertained the aforementioned WP for the same relief.

Be that as it may, the subsequent petition in WP Crl. No. 1000 of 2025 was filed for formation of the SOP / Guidelines for which a petition was already pending as stated before us. Therefore, learned Single Judge did not have any occasion to entertain the said writ petition and it ought to have dismissed the petition. But by taking suo moto cognizance even during pendency of writ petitions before the Madurai bench within whose jurisdiction the incident took place and also ignoring that Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State has already constituted an Enquiry Commission comprising of a retired Judge of the High Court, how far the order of the learned Single Judge was correct in taking suo moto cognizance and creating a SIT, is an issue."

 The Court further wondered when the Madurai bench rejected CBI investigation on the ground that there was no flaw in the State investigation, how could the Chennai Bench direct a SIT investigation. 

It is not understandable to us, particularly when prayers were made for the transfer of investigation to the CBI, the division bench at Madurai was cognisant of the same and observed that the investigation was at the nascent stage and no flaw with the investigation has been brought; in stark contradiction, the single judge, suo moto, without referring to any document, recorded dissatisfication with the progress of the investigation.

Such recourse, prima facie, indicates a lack of sensitivity and propriety to deal with such matters, leading to multiplicity of the proceedings for the reasons best known to the hon'ble judge."

 Case Details: TAMILAGA VETTRI KAZHAGAM v P.H. DINESH AND ORS.|1501 Diary No. 58048-2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 999

Click here to read the judgment