TVK told the Supreme Court that chief Vijay left the Karur stampede site on police instructions, denying allegations of abandonment. The party challenged the state-appointed SIT, seeking an impartial probe.
New Delhi: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam has contested allegations that its chief Vijay abandoned the site of the Karur stampede, telling the Supreme Court that police authorities forced him to leave the venue where 41 people died on September 27.During a two-hour hearing on Thursday, a bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria heard multiple petitions related to the tragedy while raising sharp questions about both the Tamil Nadu government’s handling of the incident and the Madras High Court’s procedural approach to the case.
Senior Advocates Gopal Subramanium and CA Sundaram, representing TVK, clarified that Vijay left the stampede site on police instructions. “The route is determined by the police, the man (Vijay) was escorted out by the police,” LiveLaw reported Subramanium as saying. The lawyers explained that law enforcement told Vijay his continued presence would worsen the situation. They argued that the Madras High Court made adverse observations about TVK and Vijay abandoning the scene and not expressing remorse without giving them a hearing. “These observations are politically damning to us,” Subramanium added.
The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns about how the Madras High Court handled the matter. The bench questioned why the Chennai bench assumed jurisdiction over an incident in Karur, which falls under the Madurai bench’s territorial limits. The court also noted that a Special Investigation Team was constituted in a petition originally seeking only Standard Operating Procedures for political rallies, not an investigation. “We are unable to understand how this order was passed? In my experience of over 15 years as a judge, a single bench holds back if the division bench has taken cognizance,” it added.
TVK Challenges TN Govt’s SIT
TVK challenged the state-appointed SIT, arguing it comprises only Tamil Nadu police officers. LiveLaw reported Sundaram stating, “To have an SIT with the officers only of the State, we have a problem. Let there be a fair investigation. We are wary of the State. All we want is an impartial investigation. Let a retired judge of the Supreme Court preside over it, we have no problem.” The party’s petition, filed through General Secretary Aadhav Arjuna, specifically objected to the High Court forming the SIT exclusively with Tamil Nadu Police officers. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state, defended the SIT composition, asserting the officers were known for their integrity and independence, with no reason to doubt their impartiality.
The Tamil Nadu government resisted transferring the investigation to the CBI. Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi argued that CBI investigations cannot be ordered casually without concrete findings of grave lapses by state police, citing relevant precedents. He also noted that Paneerselvam was not a petitioner before the High Court. Naidu responded that his client was grieving and not in a position to file immediately. Senior Advocate P Wilson added context about the timing issues, noting that an announcement stated Vijay would arrive at 12 noon, but he arrived around 7 PM, while crowds had gathered from morning. However, Justice Maheshwari clarified the bench was focused on the question of investigation. After hearing extensive arguments from all parties, the bench reserved its decision. The Supreme Court has yet to make any findings on the substantive allegations, including whether Vijay abandoned the site, the adequacy of the state’s investigation, or whether a CBI probe is warranted.