Karnataka HC directs state govt to file status report over stampede
In the stampede during the IPL victory celebration of Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) on 4 June, 11 people died and 56 others were injured.
PTI
-
Fans gather at the Vidhana Soudha for the felicitation (PTI)
Bengaluru, 5 June
Karnataka High Court on Thursday directed the state government to
file a status report on the stampede outside the cricket stadium here that led
to 11 deaths and injuries to over 50 people.
The court, after taking suo motu cognisance of the matter, issued
notice to the state, and tasked it to file a detailed status report by 10 June.
A division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao
and Justice CM Joshi directed the court registry to treat the matter as a suo
motu public interest litigation petition.
In the stampede during the IPL victory celebration of Royal
Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) on 4 June, 11 people died and 56 others were
injured.
When the matter came up before the division bench, Advocate
General Shashi Kiran Shetty said the announcement of free entry into the
stadium led to a massive rush at the gates, triggering stampede.
He made it clear that the government does not intend approaching
the matter in an adversarial way. "This is not about blame games. The aim
is to understand what went wrong and ensure such tragedies don't recur,"
he said.
Referring to the deployment of police and security personnel
during the city-wide celebrations following RCB's IPL title win, the AG said
that the situation, however, turned chaotic outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium,
where more than 2.5 lakh people had gathered, far exceeding the venue's
capacity of 30,000. "Each person thought just one more was entering the
stadium, without realising the overwhelming size of the crowd," he
explained.
The bench observed that large public events must be guided by
clear Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). "Ambulances must be available
at the venue, and there should be clarity about the nearest hospitals,"
the Acting Chief Justice noted. Responding to this, the AG said that ambulances
were indeed present, but admitted they were not adequate for an emergency of
this scale. "The issue was not their absence, but the number," he
added.
The AG informed the court that a magisterial inquiry had already
commenced and it would be completed within 15 days. All the 11 deaths and the
injuries to 56 people occurred at three specific gates out of a total of 21.
The state is treating the matter with utmost seriousness and
notices have been served to all relevant parties, including the event
management agency. "We are examining potential lapses. No one is being let
off," he told the court. Shetty noted that the Chief Minister's first
public statement was regarding compensation for victims' families. "This
tragedy calls for reviewing SOPs. We are open to suggestions from the public
and the court to avoid such events in future," he said.
A public notice has been issued by the inquiry officer, inviting
anyone with relevant information or evidence. "Testimonies will be video
recorded and submitted to the court. There is full transparency, nothing is
being concealed," he assured.
Advocate Lohith, who filed a PIL plea, told the court that the
people wanted answers on four specific points. Who authorised the felicitation
event? Was it the Karnataka government or the state cricket association? What
responsibility does the government have in honouring players who have not
represented the state or country? Also, why was the event 'split' between Vidhana
Soudha and Chinnaswamy Stadium? and what crowd control and safety arrangements
were made?
Advocate GR Mohan, also representing the PIL petitioner, pointed
out that the free entry announcement was made by a representative of the IPL
franchise. Despite the massive turnout, only three gates were kept open, which
led to bottlenecks and chaos.
Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam urged the court to consider appointing
an independent agency to ensure impartial inquiry.
At the end of the hearing, the bench said it would specify in its order the details required in the status report and posted the matter for further hearing on 10 June.
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *