New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reserved its order on a petition filed by the Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) led by actor-politician Joseph Vijay challenging the Madras High Court’s decision to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the Karur stampede. The tragic incident, which occurred at a rally addressed by Vijay, claimed the lives of 41 people in Tamil Nadu’s Karur district on September 27,2025. The Tamil actor’s party expressed a lack of faith in a state police-led investigation into the tragic incident that occurred at a rally addressed by him.
The legal battle over the probe’s jurisdiction reached the apex court after the Madras High Court’s Justice Senthilkumar ordered the formation of an SIT headed by Northern Zone IG Asra Garg to investigate the stampede. The TVK, challenging this order, argued that the truth would not emerge if the investigation remained with the Tamil Nadu Police. They pleaded for an inquiry led by a retired Supreme Court judge. A separate petition from the BJP’s Uma Anandan, challenging the Madurai Bench’s refusal to order a CBI probe, was also heard alongside.
TVK Case in Supreme Court: Contentious Arguments and Competing Demands in the Apex Court
During the hearing, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anchariya heard heated arguments from all sides. Appearing for the TVK, Senior Advocate Subramaniam contended that the High Court had passed its order without hearing their explanation. He refuted the state government’s claim that Vijay had fled after the incident, stating instead that the leader had left on the explicit instructions of police officers who feared his presence could cause further trouble.
“We do not accept the Tamil Nadu Police’s special investigation team,” Subramaniam argued, urging the Supreme Court to itself constitute an SIT and have it supervised by a former Supreme Court judge. He also questioned why the Madras High Court in Chennai, rather than its Madurai Bench, had taken up the case.
Representing the Tamil Nadu government, advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P. Wilson defended the SIT, vouching for the integrity of IG Asra Garg, who has prior CBI experience. They argued that the incident was a consequence of Vijay’s delayed arrival at the rally. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also for the state, opposed a CBI inquiry, stating it should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances and that the SIT should be given a chance first.
In a poignant intervention, Senior Advocate Seshadri Naidu, representing a petitioner who lost his son in the stampede, argued for a CBI investigation to ensure a impartial probe. After considering the arguments from all parties, the Supreme Court bench has reserved its order, leaving the future course of the investigation in suspense until a further ruling is issued.