After 41 people died in a stampede at actor-turned-politician Vijay’s political rally in Karur last September, the tragedy sparked not only grief but also a complex legal battle that has now reached India’s Supreme Court.
What happened in Karur?
On September 27, thousands of people gathered to hear Vijay, head of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, speak at a political rally. What should have been a day of political euphoria turned deadly when a stampede killed 41 people and injured over 60 others. Police records indicate that approximately 30,000 people attended, although permission was granted for only 10,000. Eyewitnesses reported a lack of security arrangements, insufficient food and water, and claimed that Vijay arrived at the venue seven hours late.
A legal conundrum
The Madras High Court ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of senior Tamil Nadu police officers to investigate the tragedy. But now the Supreme Court is questioning this very decision—not necessarily the investigation itself, but the manner in which it was ordered.
On Friday, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria raised a crucial procedural issue: How could the Chennai bench of the Madras High Court order an incident in Karur, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Madurai bench? The court also noted that the SIT order was based on a petition seeking standard protocols for political rallies—not directly about the stampede.
Who wants what?
This is where the matter becomes interesting. Several parties are moving in different directions:
Vijay’s TVK party is challenging the SIT investigation. Their lawyer shocked people by suggesting that the chaos may have been caused by a “premeditated conspiracy by rioters.” They are demanding an independent investigation under the supervision of the Supreme Court, arguing that the Tamil Nadu police cannot conduct an impartial investigation.
The families of the victims are divided. Some want a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation, believing the state police investigation could be affected by “government apathy and possible political interference.” One petitioner suspiciously stated that police officers escaped without even minor injuries.
The Tamil Nadu government is strongly opposing this. Their lawyer argued that victims do not have the right to choose which agency investigates their cases, and that the CBI’s intervention is only permitted in exceptional circumstances—which, according to them, is not the case.
Everyone is asking questions
Your questions go to the heart of the matter: If the High Court ordered an investigation, why oppose it? What is there to hide?
TVK’s opposition to the SIT appears contradictory. The investigation should reveal the truth—whether it’s about overcrowding, security lapses, or conspiracy. Their opposition raises suspicion: Are they worried about what might be revealed about the rally’s permission, security arrangements, or Vijay’s late arrival?
The public certainly deserves answers. Why were three times more people allowed in than permitted? Where were the promised security measures? Why was there no adequate medical assistance? Who approved the rally?
What happens next?
The Supreme Court has reserved its decision, promising “appropriate” action. It will also decide separately on petitions for a CBI investigation.
Meanwhile, the families of the 41 victims await justice, caught between political maneuvering and jurisdictional debates. This tragedy has exposed dangerous flaws in the management of political rallies in India. Whether it’s the SIT, the CBI, or a court-monitored investigation, someone must be held accountable for the lives of those 41 people—and ensure that such preventable tragedies never happen again.
The question isn’t just who will investigate, but whether anyone will be held accountable.
