Supreme Court Orders CBI Investigation Into Karur Stampede; Retired Supreme Court Judge To Oversee Probe
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria on October 13 directed that the investigation into the Karur stampede— which occurred on September 27 during a rally of actor Vijay’s political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), resulting in 41 deaths—be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Bench observed that the incident affected citizens’ fundamental rights and required a fair and impartial inquiry to uphold public confidence in justice. As an interim measure, the Court ordered the CBI to take over the investigation from the State authorities, stating that fair investigation is a constitutional right. It also constituted a supervisory committee headed by former Supreme Court Judge Ajay Rastogi to oversee the probe.
The matter before the Supreme Court arose from multiple petitions concerning the stampede that occurred on September 27, 2025, during a rally of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), a political party led by actor Vijay, at Velusamypuram in Karur District, Tamil Nadu. The incident claimed 41 lives and left more than 100 persons injured. The petitions before the Court challenged various orders of the Madras High Court, including one by a Single Judge directing the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and another by the Division Bench at Madurai declining to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The petitioners comprised relatives of the deceased victims, public-spirited citizens, and representatives of the TVK. They sought an independent investigation by the CBI, alleging bias and lack of impartiality in the police inquiry. The respondents included the State of Tamil Nadu and its officials. The State submitted that an FIR had already been registered under relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, and that an enquiry commission headed by retired High Court Judge Justice Aruna Jagadeeshan was constituted.
The main issue before the Court concerned the propriety of multiple overlapping proceedings—one initiated by the Single Bench ordering an SIT, and another by the Division Bench rejecting transfer to the CBI—and whether the investigation should be handed over to a central agency to ensure fairness. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the reliefs sought, the allegations of official inaction, and the scope of judicial power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to direct a CBI investigation in exceptional cases affecting public confidence and citizens’ fundamental rights.
The Bench recorded that the incident had “resulted in loss of 41 innocent lives and caused injuries to more than 100 persons during a political rally organized by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam at Karur District.” It observed that the case involved questions of fairness and propriety in judicial proceedings before the High Court, noting that “the learned Single Judge enlarged the scope of the writ petition and directed constitution of a SIT without any pleading or prayer for such relief.”
The Court stated that the Karur incident fell within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench, which was already seized of similar petitions, and questioned “how far the order of the learned Single Judge was correct in taking suo motu cognizance and creating a SIT when the Division Bench was already examining the issue.”
Referring to State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 517, the Court observed that “there are no inflexible guidelines to decide whether or not such power should be exercised, but it must be done cautiously in exceptional situations where credibility and confidence in investigation must be preserved.”
The Bench recorded that “the incident of Karur stampede has definitely left an imprint in the minds of the citizens throughout the country… and has wide ramifications in respect of the life of citizens.” It further stated that “comments made before the media by top police officers may create doubt in the minds of the citizenry on impartiality and fair investigation.”
The Court held that “faith and trust of the general public on the process of investigation must be restored… and one way to instill such trust is by ensuring that the investigation in the present case is completely impartial, independent and unbiased.”
The Supreme Court ordered that “the investigation with respect to FIR No. 855/2025 registered on 27.09.2025 in Karur Town Police Station is hereby transferred to the CBI.” The Court further directed the Director, CBI, to appoint a senior officer to take charge of the investigation and additional officers for assistance.
“The Superintendent of Police and SHO of the Karur Town Police Station as well as the SIT set up pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge and the Enquiry Commission set up by the Hon’ble Chief Minister shall immediately hand over the FIR and other relevant papers, evidence – digital or otherwise – to the officers of the CBI.”
“In view of transferring the investigation to the CBI, the direction for appointment of SIT or one-man enquiry commission shall remain suspended.” The State of Tamil Nadu was directed to extend full cooperation and provide logistical support.
Additionally, the Court constituted a three-member Supervisory Committee headed by former Supreme Court Judge Ajay Rastogi to monitor the CBI investigation and directed that related proceedings on guidelines for public rallies be assigned by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to a Division Bench for hearing.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh & Ors.; Panneerselvam Pitchaimuthu v. Union of India & Ors.; G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.; S. Prabakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.; Selvaraj P. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1224
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 58048/2025; SLP (C) Diary No. 57588/2025; SLP (Crl.) No. 16081/2025; WP (Crl.) No. 412/2025; WP (Crl.) No. 413/2025.
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice N.V. Anjaria
