The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) rejected multiple petitions seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into a tragic stampede in Karur that claimed 39 lives, while also addressing the State Government’s announcement that it will withhold permissions for political public meetings until standard operating procedures (SOPs) are framed. A division bench presided by Justices M. Dhandapani and M. Jothiraman disposed of a batch of public interest litigations pressing for the CBI probe, noting that the principal bench had already directed the State to frame SOPs for public gatherings. The petitioners were permitted liberty to file impleading applications in the pending SOP-plea.
In court, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) J. Ravindran informed the Bench that the State Government will not grant permission for political party meetings in non-designated places until appropriate SOPs are formalised. The court recorded this assurance, clarifying that the moratorium does not affect public gatherings by parties in places already designated for such events. However, while the prohibition on new permissions is in force, all parties must ensure adequate facilities—such as drinking water, toilets, and parking—are made available for any gatherings in those designated areas.
Additionally, the High Court issued notice on a petition seeking enhanced compensation for victims of the stampede and called upon the State Government to respond. The bench also addressed a PIL filed by a political party, Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi, requesting a CBI-level investigation. The court observed that the petitioner was not directly affected by the tragedy and thus lacked requisite standing to seek transfer of investigation or demand a CBI probe at the nascent stage of inquiry; accordingly, that petition was dismissed. Other related pleas for a CBI probe were also struck down as non-maintainable.
Through this decision, the High Court upheld the State’s interim restriction on political meetings pending constitution of SOPs, emphasised procedural propriety in seeking Central investigation, and restrained expansion of permissions until a formal regulatory framework is in place.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.