West Bengal’s Leader of the Opposition and senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suvendu Adhikari approached the Calcutta High Court seeking an impartial and court-supervised investigation into the violence and chaos that erupted during a high-profile event featuring Argentine football star Lionel Messi at Salt Lake Stadium in Kolkata. The incident occurred after Messi’s appearance at the venue, which was part of his “GOAT India Tour,” during which fans became frustrated with mismanagement and an allegedly inadequate opportunity to see the footballer, leading to disorder among the spectators. Angry fans reacted by ripping seats, throwing objects onto the field and engaging in other disruptive behaviour that escalated into widescale unrest at one of India’s major sporting arenas. This crowd violence occurred amid widespread criticism of logistical and organisational failures at the event, which many attendees said prevented them from seeing Messi despite having paid significant amounts for tickets.
In response to the violence, several public interest litigations (PILs) were filed before the Calcutta High Court, including one by Suvendu Adhikari. These PILs sought the court’s intervention to transfer the ongoing investigation into the incident away from local agencies to central investigative bodies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The petitioners argued that an independent and impartial probe was necessary to uncover the full circumstances leading to the chaos, to assess alleged financial and administrative irregularities related to the event, and to ensure accountability for organisational mismanagement and resulting public disorder.
Adhikari and other petitioners urged the High Court to move beyond the state-appointed inquiry committee, which the West Bengal government constituted under the chairmanship of a retired judge to examine the mishandling of the event. They contended that this committee was insufficiently neutral and lacked the investigative authority to fully explore why the unrest occurred and who bore ultimate responsibility. In seeking judicial oversight, Adhikari emphasised the need for an SIT or court-monitored investigation that could operate with independence from state government influence and local law enforcement. He also expressed concerns about administrative failures that he said resulted in public humiliation and posed safety risks to thousands of fans gathered at the stadium.
The PIL filings highlighted broader dissatisfaction with how the event was managed, with multiple petitioners asserting that procedural lapses and miscoordination among organisers and authorities contributed to the escalation of spectators’ frustration. Calls for a probe by central agencies were accompanied by demands for accountability at various levels, including alleged mismanagement by event organisers, improper crowd control, and the issuance of passes and access credentials that may have compromised crowd safety and order.
The High Court allowed the filing of these PILs and indicated that the matters would be heard together. The court’s engagement reflects judicial scrutiny of the state’s response to the incident and consideration of whether a more robust investigative mechanism is required to address potential administrative and legal breaches associated with the event. Meanwhile, authorities have been responding to the immediate fallout, with local police initiating efforts to identify and take action against individuals involved in vandalism and acts of violence during the stadium unrest, and event organisers facing legal consequences in connection with the aftermath of the chaotic episode. The legislative and legal focus on the incident underscores widespread concern over both the management of large-scale public events and the adequacy of official responses when significant public safety failures occur.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.