02-07-2025
Tribunal slams RCB, revokes IPS officer's suspension
BENGALURU The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Tuesday condemned the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) franchise for unilaterally announcing its IPL 2025 victory parade without police consultation, triggering the June 4 stampede at Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium that claimed 11 lives and left over 50 injured. An aerial view of fans gathered during Royal Challengers Bengaluru's felicitation ceremony after the team won the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025, at Vidhana Soudha, in Bengaluru. (PTI)
In a strongly worded order, the tribunal called the franchise's actions 'unilateral' and held that the police had no prior intimation or obligation to facilitate such a massive public event. Pulling up the Karnataka government for suspending five senior police officers in the wake of the tragedy, the tribunal quashed the suspension of senior IPS officer Vikash Kumar Vikash, then additional commissioner of police, Bengaluru west, and ordered his immediate reinstatement with full back pay, terming the action against him 'mechanical' and unsupported by convincing evidence.
The tribunal, comprising justice BK Shrivastava and administrative member Santosh Mehra, underscored that RCB had announced the parade via Instagram posts between 7am and 3.14pm on June 4, inviting the public and declaring free stadium entry without notifying or seeking consent from the police. As a result, it said, an unmanageable crowd of approximately 300,000 converged outside a stadium with a capacity of just 35,000.
'RCB unilaterally and without consultation with the city police created a situation of chaos,' the tribunal noted, sharply adding that 'in such a scenario, the police were not equipped with any 'Aladdin ka Chirag' (the fabled Alladin's lamp) to magically control the gathering.'
It said neither RCB, nor its event management company DNA Entertainment, nor the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) followed any legal procedure for securing permissions. As per municipal regulations and the 2009 Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions Order, any event of this scale must be cleared at least seven days in advance, with the requisite fees paid. Instead, it pointed out that only a last-minute letter was submitted to the Cubbon Park police station on June 3 -- a day before the parade -- which was never escalated to senior officers such as Vikash.
Vikash was among the five officers suspended by the state government just hours after the tragedy. But the tribunal found that his suspension lacked due process, and was issued without a show-cause notice, a hearing, or supporting material.
'In view of this tribunal, the order has been passed in a mechanical manner and is not based on convincing materials…The police officers have been suspended without any sufficient grounds,' the tribunal said.
Vikash's counsel, senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa, argued that suspension is a severe disciplinary measure meant only for proven misconduct, corruption or criminal negligence, none of which had been established against his client. He also pointed out that the magisterial and judicial inquiries into the incident had only been ordered on June 5, after the suspension had already been issued.
The state defended its decision, claiming there was prima facie evidence of a 'policing failure'. However, the tribunal disagreed, finding no evidence of substantial dereliction of duty. It pointed out that the only intimation of the event was a letter received by the Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park, and that there was no record of it being forwarded to senior officers.
While granting relief to Vikash, the tribunal also urged the state government to extend the same treatment to the other suspended officers, including commissioner of police B Dayananda.
'We also feel our duty to draw the attention of the state government to the settled principle that when a citizen obtains a favourable ruling, other similarly situated persons should be extended the same benefit without having to approach the court,' the bench said.
Meanwhile, the Karnataka high court on Tuesday resumed its hearing into a suo motu PIL on the incident, as it raised questions about the state's reluctance to make public its status report. Senior advocate S Susheela, the court-appointed amicus curiae, objected to the state's plea to keep the report confidential for 10-15 more days, calling it unjustified and unprecedented in a matter not involving national or state security. The matter will be heard next on July 2.
