DNA Entertainment Network, the event-management company involved in organising the post-match celebration at Bengaluru’s M Chinnaswamy Stadium, has moved the Karnataka High Court to quash the one‐man judicial commission report on the June 4 stampede that resulted in 11 deaths. The inquiry, led by retired judge Justice John Michael D’Cunha, found serious lapses in crowd management and held multiple stakeholders—including DNA, the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) franchise, and the police—responsible for the tragedy.
In its petition, DNA raised a string of objections. The company alleged that it was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses in the inquiry, which it characterized as a breach of natural justice. DNA claimed it never received a copy of the report even as its contents were being circulated in the media, leading to serious reputational damage. The firm further argued that such procedural flaws rendered the entire inquiry suspect.
DNA’s counsel maintained that the commission exceeded its authority under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. He submitted that the commission was tasked largely with identifying systemic failures and who was responsible, rather than proposing punitive action, and should not have made recommendations amounting to disciplinary or legal sanctions. According to the petition, the commission’s mandate did not empower it to recommend prosecutions or remedial action against individuals, yet the report drew firm conclusions against DNA and other parties.
Further, DNA contested the speed and timing of the report. It argued that the inquiry was rushed, with a one-month term granted to the commission, but the final report was filed only after mid-July—a delay the company views as unexplained and improper. DNA also raised fundamental legal concerns, claiming the report’s findings were premised on documents and testimony which had not been rigorously scrutinized or simply not shared with them.
On reputation, DNA’s senior counsel painted a stark picture: the report, once leaked, was making waves in the media and influencing public perception long before the company could even see its own defense. The court, hearing DNA’s plea, directed that a sealed copy of the commission’s report be placed before it. This was done to enable judicial scrutiny of the report in private before any further publication or action is taken.
The Advocate-General of Karnataka, representing the state, defended the commission’s process, describing it as a purely fact-finding body. He argued that the bench should wait for the government’s formal objections before accepting DNA’s challenge in full. The Court agreed to hear those objections and deferred further proceedings.
In addition, the High Court intervened to prevent immediate dissemination of the report. It ordered that the government refrain from circulating or publishing the document until the next hearing, addressing DNA’s concerns about premature public exposure.
Overall, DNA seeks not only a judicial review of the inquiry’s findings, but also a stay on any coercive or penal actions based upon them, at least until the court has considered its arguments regarding procedural fairness and natural justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.