'Reputation Being Tarnished': DNA Entertainment To Karnataka High Court In Plea To Quash Inquiry Commission's Report On Bengaluru Stampede

Event management firm M/s DNA Entertainment Network Private Limited seeking quashing of a judicial inquiry report regarding Bengaluru Stampede which occurred in May, told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (July 29) that every second its reputation is being tarnished. 

The court was hearing the firm's plea to quash the one member judicial inquiry report submitted by Retired justice John Michael Cunha in regards to the stampede that occurred outside the Chinnaswamy stadium ahead of an event to celebrate Royal Challenger Bangalore's (RCB) victory at the 2025 IPL Final.

During the hearing, senior Advocate B K Sampath appearing for company submitted before a division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Umesh M Adiga  referred to the newspaper/television channel reports and said:

“Till now we have not received the report. The Media keeps carrying the portion of the report everyday...Media reports said that the Commission report has recommended action against the organisers of the event. We are named and shamed in the media and also on social media, we are a reputed company...Every second my reputation is being tarnished”.

It was submitted that the report is not given to the petitioner but the media has reported from the report.

Sampath said “How does the media know everything, they won't do guess work unless they are provided the report?”

The bench then posed a query to the Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty about what the government intends to do with the report, referring to media reports.

Shetty said, “Newspapers may write, let him get it from them. Whether to give them (petitioner) this report or not this matter is being considered in the suo-motu petition. The matter (suo-motu petition) is listed today milord.”

The petitioner argued that principles of natural justice were not followed by the Commission. Sampath said, “Statute prescribes (Commission of Inquiry Act), Section 8 (b) we are entitled for personal hearing, Section 8 (c ) we have right of cross examination etc. The objections raised by the petitioners were not recorded by the one member commission and thus the court should call for the video recording".

The court noted that Commission of Inquiry is akin to a civil court and proceedings before it are judicial proceedings and the report submitted by it is to be placed before the State Legislature.

It orally said, “The first stage is whether you affixed your signature, on the deposition and once that is done it is presumed that you have read it and affixed your signature. At this stage can you say you were not permitted to peruse or you made a wrong statement.”

Sampath replied saying “I am saying (that) what I have said is not accurately recorded.”

On the query of delay of 13 days in filing the memo by the petitioner raising objection it was submitted, “No, documents were required to be filed as directed by the Commission, and so they (petitioner) moved it later within a reasonable time of 13 days the memo was filed with all documents.”

The court also orally said that if the proceedings are deemed to be of a civil court, then why the Commission (Justice Cunha) is to be made a party.

To this Sampath said “He has given the report, he is a formal party.” He added “I am making a submission notice to R3 may be dispensed with.”

Meanwhile Advocate General Shetty urged the court to defer the hearing, as the suo-motu petition would be taken up by the court of Chief Justice and it would cover the stampede incident and also whether the judicial commission report to be supplied to parties is being considered.

The court agreed and recorded in its order:

“Shri Sampath has stated that he is confining the petition to the aspect of violation of principle of natural justice, during proceedings of commission, in as much as the petitioner were not given opportunity to cross examine witnesses. He has further stated that due to inadvertence the R3 has been impleaded as party in the petition and he prays to court that notice to R3 be dispensed with. This pray is granted.”

It added, “Advocate General has also advanced certain submission and referred to suo-motu PIL initiated in respect of the incident, which is listed today. Under the circumstances we adjourn this matter, it shall now be listed on Aug 5 at 2.30 pm.”

The matter will be next heard on August 5. 

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

Case No: WP 22323/2025