Supreme Court directs CBI probe, appoints retired judge-led supervisory committee in Karur stampede matter

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria heard a batch of Special Leave Petitions and writ petitions arising from the Karur stampede and considered challenges to orders of the Madras High Court concerning the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), demands for CBI investigation and the framing of standard operating procedures for political rallies.

The Court transferred FIR No. 855/2025 registered at Karur Town Police Station (dated 27.09.2025) to the Central Bureau of Investigation and issued interim directions to secure an independent probe. The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the SIT and the one‑member enquiry commission constituted by the State and directed immediate handover of files, evidence and digital material to the CBI. The Court appointed a three‑member supervisory Committee to monitor the probe, to be headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.), who agreed to lead the Committee and to select two senior IPS officers (not native to Tamil Nadu) to assist. The State of Tamil Nadu was ordered to extend full cooperation, provide logistical support and bear emoluments and incidental expenses of the Committee. The Court directed the CBI to deputise a senior officer forthwith, to submit monthly progress reports to the Committee, and to complete the investigation expeditiously within statutory time frames. The Court emphasised the exceptional nature of orders directing central agency probes and, articulating its reasoning, observed: Background The proceedings arose from a crowd crush at a political rally organised by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) at Velusamypuram, Karur District on 27 September 2025, in which 41 persons died and over 100 were injured. An FIR was registered the same day under Sections 105, 110, 125B and 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. The Chief Minister announced a one‑member enquiry commission headed by a retired High Court judge; multiple public‑spirited persons and relatives of victims filed writ petitions in the Madurai Bench seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI, constitution of an SIT and formulation of SOPs for mass gatherings. The Madras High Court Division Bench declined CBI transfer petitions on the ground that the local probe was at a nascent stage and no flaw had been shown, while a Single Judge at the Main Seat suo moto directed formation of an SIT and made observations about the progress and independence of the investigation. The Supreme Court recorded concern over multiplicity of proceedings and the Single Judge’s expansion of reliefs without necessary parties and reasons, and asked the High Court to explain procedural steps in pending petitions (including WP Crl. 884/2025 concerning SOPs). Relying on this Court’s precedent that directions for CBI probes must be exercised "sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations", the bench found on prima facie grounds that the gravity, nationwide ramifications and media statements by senior police officers warranted transfer for restoring public confidence. The interim directions were issued subject to further orders after counter‑affidavits were filed; liberty was granted for further applications and the Court requested prompt constitution and functioning of the supervisory Committee.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1224 (Special Leave Petition Diary No. 58048/2025 and consolidated matters) Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh & Ors. (and consolidated matters) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order