Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Supreme Court on Friday, October 10, asked the Tamil Nadu government to explain how the post-mortems of the victims of the Karur stampede were completed within hours of the tragedy. A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and NV Anjaria raised multiple questions over the state government's handling of the September 27 stampede during actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) rally in Karur, which left 41 people dead and several injured.
“You conducted the post-mortems in three or four hours? How many tables were there?” Justice Maheshwari asked senior advocate P Wilson, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government.
The court also questioned why permission was granted to actor-politician Vijay’s rally when the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) had earlier been denied approval for the same venue.
Wilson said Chief Minister MK Stalin had travelled to Karur overnight to meet families of the victims who requested the bodies to be released early. He added that over 600 doctors and nurses, many of whom were already in Karur for a medical conference, were mobilised to carry out the post-mortems in different hospitals.
The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions, including one by TVK, challenging the Madras High Court’s October 3 order directing the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by Inspector-General of Police Asra Garg.
TVK argued that the order was passed without hearing party president Vijay or other leaders, and said the High Court had wrongly observed that Vijay fled the scene, and that he was actually escorted away by police.
Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium and CA Sundaram, representing TVK, said the party had complete faith in an SIT constituted by the Supreme Court, but not one formed by the state.
The Bench further asked why the High Court’s principal bench in Chennai took up the case when the incident fell under the Madurai bench’s jurisdiction.
Petitioners who lost family members in the tragedy, including Paneerselvam Pitchaimuthu and S Prabhakaran, sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, alleging that the police were largely responsible for the incident and that multiple inquiries, one by the SIT and another by a Commission led by retired judge Justice Aruna Jagadeesan, could lead to confusion.
S Prabhakaran also claimed that the lathi-charge and ambulances with no registration numbers further disturbed the crowds.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, AM Singhvi, and P Wilson opposed the demand for a CBI investigation, saying it would undermine the federal structure and said it was not proper to question the impartiality of the SIT probe.
The Supreme Court has reserved its orders on the petitions.