Bengaluru Stampede: 'Suo Motu PIL Aims To Look Into State Action, Future Measures': Karnataka HC; Govt Asked To Submit Crowd Control SOP

At the outset, a bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru & Justice CM Joshi clarified the scope of the suo moto PIL as it orally observed thus:

"This is a suo moto writ plea as the lives of citizens have been lost. We are only looking at two things: first, whether the state is taking an action, and two, what could be the protocol so that these things do not occur in future".

During the course of the hearing, referring to the huge crowd turnout at the event, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty said nearly 3 lakh people came to the stadium, when the capacity was only 35,000 people. He added, "Free entry was there, so a large crowd came there and everybody wanted to enter the stadium".

Furthermore, AG also sought time to place on record the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on crowd management as he submitted that he would be circulating the SOP and seeking suggestions on the same. 

DNA Entertainment Flags Tarnishing of Reputation

Appearing for DNA Entertainment Ltd., Senior Advocate B K Sampath submitted before the bench that despite the report having been submitted over 15 days ago, it had not been furnished to them. He also added that his reputation is getting affected

"Our reputation is being tarnished every day. We have not been given the report till date even after 15 days. We are being named and shamed in the media", he submitted.

Referring to proceedings before a coordinate bench earlier today, the counsel stated that the State had submitted that since the present PIL is pending, no order should be passed.

He thus requested the Court to clarify that the pending suo motu PIL will not hinder the maintainability or hearing of the separate challenge to the commission's report.

Read more about DNA Entertainment's submissions before a different bench earlier today: 'Reputation Being Tarnished': DNA Entertainment To Karnataka High Court In Plea To Quash Inquiry Commission's Report On Bengaluru Stampede

Amicus refers to the existing Guidelines, calls for collective responsibility

Amicus Curiae S. Susheela, in her submissions, referred to National Disaster Management Authority's (NDMA) guidelines for 'Managing Crowd at Events and Venues of Mass Gathering' that have existed since 2014.

"If they want to improvise on this, fair enough. Our endeavour should be that no such incidents occur in future", she stated.

Stressing the need for shared accountability and referring to a book authored by G Keith Still named 'Introduction to Crowd Science', she added, "Different departments should take responsibility in different ways. Collective responsibility is required in this case".

At this juncture, the Court also referred to the recent Mansa Devi stampede in Haridwar while discussing the need for robust preventive mechanisms.

The Court also suggested that the event organisers must apply for police permissions for such incidents, and the police department should have a 'check box' system to verify crowd control arrangements.

The court also added that different events would have different ways to manage crowds, and the same should be examined by the State and seek suggestions from experts or the Disaster Management Authority.

Furthermore, a counsel representing an applicant, a newspaper editor and social activist, sought impleadment and urged the Court to provide him with the certified copies of the commission's report, amicus' submissions and the objections which he claimed were kept in a sealed cover.

The Court, however, clarified that this is a PIL, and no documents will be kept in sealed cover, although some may not yet have been opened.

When the counsel claimed that some documents had indeed been kept sealed, the Court clarified, "This is a PIL. Nothing will be in a sealed cover. Everything will be part of the record".

When asked whether the applicant possessed special expertise in crowd management, the counsel stated they had submitted some research. The Court was thus not inclined to allow his impleadment.

Recording the Advocate General's submission that the SOP will be placed on record shortly, the Court adjourned the matter to September 1.

Development in the matter till now

On June 5, 2025, the High Court took a suo motu cognizance of the stampede in which 11 people lost their lives and over 30 people sustained injuries.

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty had admitted that over 2.5 lakh people had gathered near the stadium and that 1,483 police personnel including 1,318 officers, had been deployed at the incident site.

It was apprised to the bench that the crowd had come from various districts, including Dakshina Kannada, Kolar, Yadgir, and Tumkur. Responding to the Court's query on the state's preparedness, he stated that ambulances were deployed but admitted that the number was not sufficient.

He also informed the Court that the State Government had ordered a Magisterial Inquiry and that an FIR had been registered.

When the Court had asked if there was an existing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to handle such emergencies, AG Shetty had stated that there wasn't, and he assured that the government would prepare one.

On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner had described the incident as one of 'criminal negligence' and had questioned the rationale behind felicitating players not representing the country. It was alleged that only three stadium gates were opened, despite the overwhelming turnout.

Another senior advocate, Arun Shyam, urged the Court to consider adopting a response similar to that in the Chamarajanagar tragedy during COVID-19.

On June 18, the High Court directed the Registry to implead the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCSPL), and DNA Entertainment Ltd as respondents in the matter and issued notices to them.

The bench noted it had perused the State Government's status report and observed that these parties should be involved in the proceedings. It also expressed its intention to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the Court.

On that day, the Court had raised concerns about the State seeking to file reports in sealed cover. AG Shetty had argued that premature disclosure of the State's views could influence the ongoing Magisterial and Judicial Commission inquiries.

However, the intervenors had strongly opposed this suggestion as they submitted that transparency and accountability were critical in this case.

Further, on June 23, the High Court appointed Senior Advocate S Susheela as amicus curiae in the matter.

Now, on July 15, the High Court refused to keep the State Government's status report in sealed cover as the division bench observed that the reasons cited (to keep the report in the sealed cover) did not meet the legal thresholds of public interest, national security, or privacy rights.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269, the Court had reiterated that the doctrine of proportionality required such restrictions to be based on compelling constitutional grounds.

The Court noted that proceedings were initiated suo motu to determine what led to the tragedy, whether it could have been prevented, and what measures are necessary to avoid similar incidents in the future.

The court observed : "We are of the view that, if the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can assist the Court to understand the facts in a better perspective including the reasons which led to the incident and also it could have been prevented. It shall also signify a fair chance being given to the parties to narrate the happening of events on 04.06.2025 as per their perspective".

Finally, the Court had noted that when replies/response of respondents No.2, 3 and 4 on the happening of events on 04.06.2025 have been shared with the counsel for the State, there is no reason, nor any justification, not to share the status report as filed by the State.

"Otherwise, it would be unfair to the impleaded parties who shared their stand on the events that happened on 04.06.2025 but not the State", the bench had said.

It may be noted that the state government has already admitted in the HC that all 5 officers who had been suspended in the aftermath of the Chinnaswamy stampede had been suspended for their failure to act based on information regarding the gathering of people, leading to the stampede, and not merely for misconduct.

Defending the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order quashing his suspension, IPS officer Vikash Kumar Vikas on July 17 submitted before the High Court that he had been made a scapegoat by the Government, as someone had to be blamed for the 'unfortunate' stampede near Chinnaswamy stadium ahead of the RCB team's 2025 IPL victory celebration.

Event management firm M/s DNA Entertainment Network Private Limited has also moved the HC seeking quashing of a judicial inquiry report regarding the Stampede. Earlier today, it told the High Court that every second, its reputation is being tarnished.

The firm is challenging the judicial inquiry report submitted by Retired Justice John Michael Cunha in regards to the stampede.

IPL cricket team Royal Challengers Bengaluru has also approached the Karnataka High Court against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal blaming the Team for the stampede.