In Frames: Stampede country
On July 2, 2024, in Hathras in Uttar Pradesh, followers gathered in large numbers to see a self-styled godman. As they rushed to collect sand from his footsteps, which they considered sacred, there was a stampede and 121 followers lost their lives. Worn-out and broken slippers strewn around reflected the gravity of the tragedy.
In Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh, six people died and 20 others were injured on January 8, 2025, while trying to collect tokens at counters for the Vaikunta Ekadasi darshan at the Tirumala temple. The tragedy struck despite 94 counters having been set up in Tirupati to avert crowding.
Dozens sleeping on the banks of Sangam in Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh were trampled to death during the Kumbh Mela on January 29, 2025, when thousands converged here to take a dip in the Sangam on the occasion of Mauni Ammavasya, considered auspicious by devotees. While the official death toll is put at 37, a BBC Hindi investigation counted it at much higher 82.
On June 4, 2025, IPL franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) team members were to attend a celebratory event at the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru after lifting their first ever IPL trophy. Already basking in celebration and amid an emotional outburst, RCB fans started flocking to the yet unopened stadium gates, in numbers not anticipated by the police, from the morning. By afternoon, the crowd was uncontrollable. In the resultant stampede, 11 people died and many others were injured.
Except for the Bengaluru stampede and one at a Hyderabad theatre for an Allu Arjun film's premiere which occurred in cities, other tragedies struck during mass gatherings observing an act of faith.
In New Delhi railway station, 18 people died during a rush of devotees to catch a train headed to the Kumbh Mela.
(Text by Dinesh Krishnan)
Pall of gloom: Family members gather after the death of their loved ones during a stampede at a religious gathering of a godman in Hathras in Uttar Pradesh on July 2, 2024.
Rushing to help: Devotees' belongings lie scattered on the ground as rescue personnel carry away a victim after a stampede at the Sangam in Prayagraj on January 29, 2025
Me before you: Devotees at a counter for tokens to attend a religious event at the Tirumala temple, minutes before the stampede on January 8, 2025.
In shock: Stranded family members of the injured at the Kumbh Mela stampede in Prayagraj on January 29, 2025
Fatal charm: Actor Allu Arjun being shifted to a hospital after his statement was recorded in connection with a stampede at a movie theatre in Hyderabad that claimed a life in December 2024.
Left behind: Clothes, footwear and canes belonging to devotees seen on the spot where a stampede occurred at Lairai Devi Temple in Shirgao, Goa in May 2025.
Together in mourning: Family members of a victim of a stampede at the New Delhi railway station as devotees on their way to the Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj rushed from one platform to another in February 2025.
Troubled journey: Passengers aboard a train at the New Delhi railway station following a stampede due to overcrowding caused by devotees heading to Prayagraj.
Joy to tears: A scene at one of the gates of the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru after fans of cricket team Royal Challengers Bengaluru tried to force their way inside during the celebration of its IPL triumph on June 4, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
K'taka HC orders state to share stampede report with KSCA, RCB, and DNA
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to provide a copy of the status report on the June 4 stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium, submitted by it in sealed cover, to the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), and DNA Entertainment Networks. The court rejected the state's justification for withholding the report, noting that the Supreme Court permits sealed cover confidentiality only in matters involving national security, public interest, or privacy rights criteria that do not apply in this case. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi made these observations on Monday while deciding whether parties involved in the suo motu public interest litigation on the stampede should be given access to the report. The stampede occurred outside the Bengaluru Chinnaswamy Stadium while RCB was celebrating its maiden IPL title victory inside. Responding to the state government's argument that sharing the report could influence the ongoing judicial commission and magisterial inquiry, the bench called the concern unfounded and lacking in public interest justification. It emphasised that retired judges and senior All-India Service officers heading the inquiries are not likely to be swayed by the contents of the status report. The court reiterated that the suo motu proceedings were initiated to determine the cause of the stampede, assess accountability, and suggest preventive measures for the future. Withholding the report from key parties, while expecting their cooperation, would be "unfair", the bench said. "If the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can help the court better understand the sequence of events, contributing factors, and whether the tragedy was avoidable," the judges observed. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
The Hindu
19 hours ago
- The Hindu
Submit list of criminal cases against ‘Savukku' Shankar: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court, on Monday (July 14, 2025) directed the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary, Director General of Police (DGP) and Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police to submit by July 29 a list of criminal cases pending against YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar alias A. Shankar (48) and the number of cases in which investigation had been completed. The direction was issued while ordering notice to the three top officials and directing them to file their counter affidavit to a writ petition filed by Mr. Shankar alleging police interference in the functioning of Savukku Media (One Person Company) Private Limited. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the judge criticised journalists who conduct parallel media trial in criminal cases just for sensationalisation and go to the extent of dictating to the police and even the judges as to how a case should be handled, without waiting to see the outcome of those cases. Asking the YouTuber's counsel to advise his client, the judge said, journalists could not misuse the fundamental right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and begin throwing mud on each and every institution in the country right at the preliminary stage of inquiry/investigation. 'We have to take the weapon (of Article 19) for a good cause, not for blackmailing. It is a stark reality that some of the journalists are blackmailing people... You cannot expect police and courts to act as per your dictum.... This is not the way... You are misguiding the people by doing all this,' the judge said. In his affidavit, Mr. Shankar had accused the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police A. Arun of subjecting him and his employees to various 'unlawful actions' since February this year just because he had been exposing police atrocities, misconduct and inaction through his YouTube channel. The petitioner said that he had gone to Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh by road in February this year, along with his crew members, to cover the Kumbh Mela. Then, a team of 20 personnel from the Telangana police intercepted their car and took them to the Ramayampet police station for inquiry. The entire crew comprising the driver and cameraman was detained for about two hours on February 8 and was allowed to go only on payment of ₹1,000 for not being in possession of Pollution Under Check (PUC) certificate. He alleged that the harassment was meted out to them at the behest of Greater Chennai police. The petitioner said that he had immediately sent an e-mail to the Home Secretary complaining about the Chennai police tracking his movements and subjecting him to harassment. He also stated that in May, the motorcycles belonging to his cameraman and visual editor were seized by the police on petty charges. Hence, he made a second complaint to the Home Secretary on May 23 since the latter was the chairperson of the State Police Complaints Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act of 2013 and was the appropriate authority to look into complaints of police highhandedness. Further, stating that he had made a similar complaint to the DGP too on June 21; the petitioner sought a direction to the Home Secretary and DGP to take appropriate action on his complaints and forbear the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police from interfering with the functioning of Savukku Media. However, Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, representing the Home Secretary, contended that the complaints lodged by the writ petitioner would not strictly fall under the purview of the 2013 Act. He also stated that he would make all his submissions in writing by way of a counter affidavit within two weeks.
Indian Express
20 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘No national security, privacy involved in Bengaluru cricket stampede report,' Karnataka HC says while rejecting state government's plea for sealed cover status
The Karnataka High Court last week ruled that a report presented by the state government to the HC regarding the June 4 stampede at the Bengaluru cricket stadium – where 11 fans of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) were killed during a celebration of the team's Indian Premier League (IPL) championship victory – does not have to remain a sealed cover document as sought by the government. The Congress government in Karnataka had presented a report to the HC in a sealed cover on June 12 about the stampede after the HC took up a suo motu case on June 5 and posed nine questions to the government regarding the responsibility for the tragedy. The state government had argued against revealing the contents of the sealed cover report to several litigants, who also filed petitions in the HC regarding the tragedy, on the grounds that the revelation of the preliminary findings may influence three separate inquiries – a judicial probe, a magisterial probe and a Criminal Investigation Department (CID) police probe initiated by the state. After hearing arguments, including the version of an amicus curiae appointed to assist the court in the case, a division bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled that the state government's report on the stampede tragedy does not involve national security, public interest or privacy rights and that it does not warrant consignment to a sealed cover. The HC division bench of Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi ruled in an oral order that the case of the Bengaluru stampede deaths does not fall in the category of cases where the Supreme Court has ruled that sealed cover reports can be given. The HC rejected the plea of state Advocate General K M Shashikiran Shetty and special counsel Uday Holla for retaining the state report on the stampede in a sealed cover in the HC. 'Having noted the position of law, it must be stated that, in the facts of this case, the plea of Sri. Shetty and Sri. Holla does not appeal to the Court. This we say so because, the law governing the sealed cover is no more res integra (untouched matter in law) in view of the judgments referred to above and the same will not help the plea advanced by Sri. Shetty and Sri. Holla,' the bench noted. The HC said that the argument that the magisterial inquiry/judicial commission may get influenced by the facts in the status report is without merit because 'surely a retired High Court judge and an all India service officer' dealing with the inquiries 'cannot be susceptible to influences emanating from the status report of respondent No.1.' 'In fact, such arguments have no factual basis. That apart, these proceedings have been initiated suo motu by this Court to know the reasons that led to the tragedy; whether it could have been prevented and what measures to be taken to prevent such tragedies in future. The finding on those issues has to be on factual foundation,' the HC stated. 'Moreover, we are of the view that, if the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can assist the court to understand the facts in a better perspective including the reasons which led to the incident and also how it could have been prevented,' the high court further noted. The HC said that the report would contain facts as perceived by the Government, which would not change after reports are submitted by the judicial commission/magisterial inquiry. The HC also said that objections raised by the state to the sharing of some documents regarding deployment of police personnel and arrangements made for regulating traffic during earlier events, and on June 4, do not benefit from claims of confidentiality made by the state. 'So we accordingly direct that, the status report dated 12.06.2025 with translations filed by the State shall be part of the file and a copy thereof shall be furnished by the State to the respondents No.2 to 4 within four days from today (July 8),' the HC ruled. The HC posed nine questions to the Karnataka government with regard to the June 4 stampede at the M Chinnaswamy cricket stadium in Bengaluru. Among the questions posed by the HC are – 'When and who has taken the decision to hold the victory celebration and in what manner?' Whether 'any permission was sought to organise the event?' and 'whether any SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) has been formulated to manage a crowd of 50,000 and above in any sports event and celebrations of this nature?' The Karnataka government – which also felicitated the RCB team on June 4 in Bengaluru – has been arguing in the courts that the cause of the stampede tragedy at the Bengaluru cricket stadium was the unilateral decision of RCB to invite fans for an open celebration in Bengaluru on June 4 – through announcements in Ahmedabad on June 3 (including those by key RCB players after the win) and social media posts early on June 4. The government has argued that open invitations were extended to fans without RCB obtaining the official clearances needed from the Bengaluru police for hosting the event. RCB made an announcement on June 3, at Ahmedabad, at 11.30 pm, about hosting celebrations in Bengaluru on June 4 for its first-ever IPL final victory, the Karnataka government has said in a factual narration of events in the report to the HC. 'On factual narration what emerges is that on the evening of June 3, at 11.30 PM, they have stated that they are coming to Bengaluru for celebrations,' Shashikiran Shetty told the division bench of the Karnataka HC last month after providing a report in a sealed cover on the stampede deaths – as sought by the court. 'The pre incident, the incident, the post incident – we have given a factual narration and answered all your queries to the extent possible on the basis of the material that is available,' the Karnataka advocate general told the HC on June 12.
