2 days ago
‘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.
