Bengaluru Stampede | 'Shocking Remarks In Judicial Inquiry Report, These Aren't Hardened Criminals': Karnataka HC Orally Remarks In DNA's Plea

In a matter arising out of the stampede which took place outside the Chinnaswamy stadium during the IPL victory parade of the RCB cricket team, the Karnataka High Court has directed the state to file its objection against a plea by DNA entertainment limited, an organiser of the event, challenging the observations made in the judicial enquiry commission into the incident.

A division bench of Justices J. Banerji and U. Adiga directed that the state file its objection in three weeks, and took the assurance of the state that the report would not be published or circulated in the public domain. It further directed that the report be kept in a sealed cover in the office of the Registrar General.

Counsel for the petitioner challenged the report under Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, stating that the report had been finalised without taking statements from the witnesses.

It was stated that the petitioner company claims its own reputation and goodwill and falls under the category of "person" appearing in Section 8(b) of the Act. It was thus stated that the release of the report without allowing an opportunity to be heard to witnesses or the petitioner would be violative of the Act.

Advocate General appearing for the state submitted that the commission was empowered to set up its own procedure, and that the request to cross-examine and examine witnesses was only received from the petitioners one day before the deadline for the submission of the report.

Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the report, the court ordered the state to file its objections to the plea raised by the petitioners and adjourned the matter to a later date.

However, upon being told by the petitioners' counsel about the fact that the report had been allegedly used for a CID inquiry against the petitioners, the court remarked, "Some observations in the report are shocking...(these are) not hardened criminals, we are not making any observations at this stage."

Advocate General however, reassured the court that the CID inquiry had been initiated before the report was filed and that it shall not be circulated or made available in the public domain.

Accordingly, the matter was adjourned.