By Shashwat Singh
The Supreme Court of India has held a hearing on several legal filings that involve the Karur stampede that took place on September 27 during an actor‑turned‑politician Vijay’s rally. The Court is still deciding where to direct the next steps and has asked the Tamil Nadu government to file a reply to one of the petitions.
What happened in Karur?
During the Vijay rally, a crowd burst into a stampede that killed at least 39 people and injured many more. Families of the victims, the Tamil Vidhi Karm (TVK) party, and other parties have all filed petitions asking for a fresh investigation.
Supreme Court’s question to Tamil Nadu
A bench made up of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria asked the state to submit a counter‑affidavit in answer to pleas that requested a central agency to run a probe. The Court will issue a decision after reviewing all the arguments.
TVK’s challenge to the Madras High Court
TVK, represented by its General Secretary Aadhav Arjuna, argues that the Madras High Court’s move to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) is based on shaky claims made by the state’s Additional Advocate General. TVK also says the High Court wrongly blamed its leaders for failing to rescue the crowd. The party says the High Court heard the request for an SIT without hearing its side, and it claims the court took over the matter too early.
The Supreme Court asked why the single judge in Chennai made an order while a division bench in Madurai—which has jurisdiction over Karur—was already dealing with the case on standard operating procedures for political rallies.
Other petitions heard
A family of a 10‑year‑old victim that died in the stampede wants an independent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe. Senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and P. Wilson defended the state’s support for a police‑led SIT, stressing that the government had no say in appointing the head of the team.
A petitioner whose sister and fiancé were killed raised concerns about the police’s handling of the rally. The lawyer highlighted that the police had no documented evidence of violence before they used batons. The counsel also argued that the police allowed an unregistered ambulance to move through the crowd and that the crowd was peaceful before the chaos started.
Another counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, counter‑argued that the SIT led by senior officer Aasra Garg is a sufficient step and that there was never a suggestion that only the CBI should investigate.
Supreme Court’s stance
Justice Maheshwari reminded the counsel that the case is not about politics, but about justice for the victims. The Court will issue a decision after weighing all the pleas.
()
Source: aninews
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in world News on Latest NewsX. Follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter(X), Gettr and subscribe our Youtube Channel.
