The Supreme Court on Friday raised questions over the Madras High Court’s decision to constitute a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the Karur stampede that claimed 41 lives.
A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria expressed confusion over how a single bench of the Chennai High Court proceeded with the matter while a division bench in Madurai was already considering it. Justice Maheshwari remarked, “In my experience of over 15 years as a judge, a single bench holds back if the division bench has taken cognisance.”
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing Tamil actor Vijay’s political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), told the apex court that the petition before the high court was filed only to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for political rallies. He added that the SIT was formed immediately, and adverse remarks were made against the party and Vijay without hearing them.
Senior advocate C.A. Sundaram also highlighted that while the chief justice of the high court can authorise a special bench to hear such matters, no such authorisation was granted in this case. Both lawyers contended that the high court’s observations claiming that TVK and Vijay abandoned the venue and failed to express remorse were incorrect, noting that police had asked the actor to leave to prevent the situation from worsening.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny signals a potential reassessment of the high court’s handling of the stampede investigation and its approach to procedural norms.
