Madras HC has set up an SIT led by IG Asra Garg to probe the Karur stampede that killed 41. The court slammed TVK for negligence and lack of remorse, while rejecting bail pleas of its leaders, who face culpable homicide charges.
Chennai (Tamil Nadu): The Madras High Court has formed a Special Investigation Team led by Inspector General of Police Asra Garg to probe the Karur stampede that resulted in 41 deaths on September 27. While announcing the investigation, Justice N Senthilkumar criticized the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party for abandoning the scene following the tragedy and their failure to demonstrate regret over the incident. The judge emphasized that the court must not ignore its duties or look away from such serious matters, noting that the events had been witnessed globally. The petition sought establishment of proper protocols for public gatherings and a thorough inquiry into what transpired.
According to the petition, the incident resulted from inadequate preparation and gross negligence by event organizers rather than being merely accidental. The petition highlights that the lack of established safety protocols increases the risk of similar disasters occurring in the future. The petitioner’s original representation had outlined three main demands: implementation of comprehensive safety protocols for all political gatherings and public assemblies, accountability measures against those responsible for the Karur disaster, and a temporary halt on permissions for such events until mandatory safety requirements are enforced. The petition notes that despite these concerns being raised, state authorities had not provided any response to the representation.
Madras HC Rejects Bail Plea of TVK Leaders
Meanwhile, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court rejected the bail applications filed by TVK General Secretary Bussy Anand and the party’s joint secretary CTR Nirmal Kumar. Both officials face potential arrest under multiple provisions: Section 105 (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 110 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), Section 125(b) (act endangering life or personal safety of others), and Section 223 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the BNS. Additionally, they face charges under Section 3 (punishment for committing mischief in respect of property) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992.
The petitioners’ legal representative argued that law enforcement was absent from critical crowd areas and accused authorities of manipulating the case. “There was no policeman anywhere near the crowd. I will show how the entire case was manipulated by the State. I have no intention to kill my own cadres…What is the basic allegation?…Both offences require intention to commit culpable homicide. An accident cannot be converted into culpable homicide,” LiveLaw quoted the defense counsel as saying. The lawyer emphasized that officials had authorized the gathering to proceed from 3-10 PM on Saturday. The defense maintained that if authorities found the selected venues problematic, they should have denied permission initially rather than approving it. He asserted that organizers violated no regulations, caused no property damage, and received no police complaints about non-cooperation.
“My leader comes at 6 PM. The crowd was so much. No one can blame people. They wanted to see leader. I would have expected police to give appropriate protection. I am accusing them, not blaming them. The State takes responsibility. I give application to police telling ‘so much people are to come and give me permission’. I was given permission.”
When the court asked the state government why permission was not cancelled, the prosecutor responded that they could not anticipate that a stampede would occur. He further blamed TVK for not taking any steps to address the crowd. The court observed that the crowd included minors and school going children. “Was it not part of the police to regulate crowd?” However, the prosecutor highlighted failures in basic provisions and leadership response, questioning the actions party officials took and noting no crowd management announcements were made. The prosecution characterized the bail application as “a political strategy to justify their act of not taking steps for their own cadres.”