Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has instructed the state government to submit a comprehensive status report regarding the tragic stampede that occurred outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium, resulting in 11 fatalities and injuries to over 50 individuals.
In a suo motu action, the court issued a notice to the state, mandating the submission of the detailed report by June 10. A division bench, led by Acting Chief Justice V. Kameshwar Rao and Justice C. M. Joshi, has classified this matter as a suo motu public interest litigation petition.
The stampede took place on June 4 during the IPL victory celebration of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), where an overwhelming crowd gathered to celebrate the team’s success. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty explained to the court that the announcement of free entry to the stadium led to an unprecedented surge of attendees at the gates, ultimately triggering the stampede.
Shetty emphasized that the government does not wish to approach this situation adversarially. “This is not about assigning blame; our goal is to understand what went wrong and to ensure that such tragedies do not happen again,” he stated.
He further elaborated on the chaotic circumstances outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium, where more than 250,000 people congregated, far exceeding the venue’s capacity of 30,000. “Each individual believed that only one more person was entering the stadium, failing to grasp the sheer magnitude of the crowd,” he explained.
The bench underscored the necessity for large public events to be governed by clear Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). “Ambulances must be readily available at the venue, and there should be clear information regarding the nearest hospitals,” noted the Acting Chief Justice, highlighting the importance of preparedness in preventing future incidents.
In response to the situation, the Attorney General (AG) acknowledged the presence of ambulances at the event but conceded that their numbers were insufficient for an emergency of this magnitude. “The issue was not their absence, but rather the inadequate quantity,” he stated.
The AG informed the court that a magisterial inquiry had already been initiated and is expected to conclude within 15 days. He noted that all 11 fatalities and the injuries sustained by 56 individuals occurred at three specific gates out of a total of 21.
The state is treating this matter with the utmost seriousness, having issued notices to all relevant parties, including the event management agency. “We are thoroughly investigating potential lapses. No one will evade accountability,” he assured the court. He also highlighted that the Chief Minister’s initial public statement focused on providing compensation for the families of the victims.
“This tragedy necessitates a comprehensive review of standard operating procedures (SOPs). We welcome suggestions from both the public and the court to prevent similar incidents in the future,” he added.
A public notice has been issued by the inquiry officer, inviting anyone with pertinent information or evidence to come forward. “All testimonies will be video recorded and submitted to the court. We are committed to full transparency; nothing is being concealed,” he emphasized.
Advocate Lohith, who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), addressed the court, stating that the public seeks clarity on four specific issues: Who authorized the felicitation event? Was it the Karnataka government or the state cricket association? What responsibility does the government hold in honoring players who have not represented the state or country? Additionally, why was the event divided between Vidhana Soudha and Chinnaswamy Stadium? What crowd control and safety measures were implemented?
Advocate G R 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 June 10.
