More than two weeks have passed since 41 people died after a crowd crush at a political rally of actor-politician Vijay and his party, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in Karur. Yet, far from establishing culpability, the judicial response risks prioritising political narrative over factual inquiry. On October 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India’s intervention, transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and appointing a supervisory committee, was ostensibly meant to restore order after procedural disarray at the Madras High Court. The Court’s move seems to have arisen because of the sharp remarks, perhaps unwarranted, by a single judge at the Madras High Court about Mr. Vijay and the TVK, neither of whom was a party in a case about rally protocols that did not directly concern the Karur incident (which fell under the Madurai Bench’s jurisdiction). But the Court has created new problems. It has granted the petitioners’ demands for a CBI investigation and judicial supervision as “interim relief”, yet the measures are irreversible. Once the CBI files a charge sheet, there can be no reversion to State police investigation. The Court’s rationale for the CBI transfer is equally problematic. It cites press conferences by senior State officials as attempts to exonerate subordinates, casting a doubt on investigative impartiality. But this amounts to a gag order on public officials. After the incident, Mr. Vijay and his supporters alleged conspiracy. Should State officials refrain from responding to grave allegations amplified across social media merely to appear neutral? Presenting factual evidence, including footage, should not automatically prejudice an investigation. This is too flimsy a ground for a transfer of the case to the CBI, once described by the Court as a caged parrot of the Centre. Ironically, the Court cited State of West Bengal and Ors. vs The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. (2010), which warns against ordering CBI investigations “as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police”, undermining its own reasoning.
The order devotes considerable attention to police “inaction” and crowd management failures but makes no mention of the TVK’s or leaders’ responsibilities in organising the rally. The Court may be seen as pre-judging who was at fault. It notes that the TVK was not made a party in the High Court proceedings, yet does not consider what this could mean for a balanced inquiry. Following the interim order, it is unclear what remains to be adjudicated at the final stage. It remains to be seen how the Court will address allegations that one petitioner was unaware of the petition filed in his name, and that another litigant, who abandoned his family years ago, is not a ‘real’ representative of a child victim. Justice requires affixing clear responsibility to deter chaos, not proceedings that muddy accountability.
Published – October 15, 2025 12:20 am IST
