Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Karnataka High Court, on Tuesday, August 5, directed the state government to submit in a sealed cover, the report of the judicial commission probing the stampede at Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium during the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) IPL victory celebrations on June 4.
The court's direction came during a hearing on a petition filed by DNA Entertainment Network Pvt Ltd seeking to quash the inquiry report.
A division bench comprising Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Umesh M Adiga heard the matter and said, “...we deem it fit that report of the Commission be placed for perusal of court in sealed cover. On the request of AG, list this matter on August 7,” according to Live Law.
The commission, headed by retired High Court judge Justice John Michael Cunha, submitted its report to the Chief Minister on July 11, over a month after the tragic incident that claimed 11 lives. DNA Entertainment, which managed the event, claimed the report was leaked to the media and severely damaged its reputation even though it had neither received the report nor been granted a personal hearing.
Senior Advocate BK Sampath, representing the petitioner, contended that the commission exceeded its mandate by recommending action, instead of merely identifying lapses.
“Terms of reference nowhere give power to the Commission to say that such and such action be taken against a certain person or make recommendation. It was only to ascertain what were the lapses and who was responsible,” he submitted.
He further invoked Section 8(B) (Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, saying, “Before I am hanged I should be heard.” He further added, “We are not given the report and our image is tarnished by print, electronic and social media. The commission did not have power to recommend anything, it could only say who is at fault.”
Highlighting procedural lapses, Sampath stated that the petitioner had requested a personal hearing and copies of depositions in July but received no response. He emphasised that despite these requests, the report was finalised and shared with the media.
The Advocate General, K Shashi Kiran Shetty, questioned the maintainability of the petition, calling it “premature” and an “abuse of process.” He told the bench that DNA Entertainment had filed its petition just a day after seeking documents from the state without waiting for a reply.
The AG maintained that the scope of the commission was to ascertain facts and suggest preventive measures. He assured the court that any action based on the report would be preceded by a formal notice to the affected parties. "The report is for our purpose," he argued.
However, the court reiterated that the petitioner’s core grievance pertained to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination under Section 8(B) of the Commission of Inquiry Act. The court directed the AG to clarify whether the report would be tabled before the legislature. AG Shetty responded that he would seek instructions.
The court also acknowledged that the procedural and merit-based aspects of the case could only be addressed after examining the report. It granted time to the Advocate General to place the sealed report before the bench and listed the matter for further hearing on August 7.
In his concluding remarks, Sampath argued that “reputation is a central facet of the Right to Life,” urging the court to stay the commission’s report and any subsequent action. The bench did not grant interim relief but confirmed it would assess the report before making further decisions.