The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday posted to June 12 the next hearing into a petition initiated by it on the June 4 stampede at the Chinnaswamy stadium here that claimed 11 lives. The court ordered Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty to file a reply in a sealed cover.
During the hearing, AG Shetty submitted that he has not yet filed his reply. He said a judicial commission has been constituted, giving a one-month timeline for a report. He also noted that police officers have been suspended.
Shetty requested for a sealed-envelope submission, stating that in the pending bail petitions being heard concurrently, any statements made in the case were being used by the accused.
Also read: Karnataka HC to hear stampede case involving RCB on June 10
The suo-moto petition was heard by acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice CM Joshi. A former member of the Legislative Council sought to be impleaded in the petition.
Meanwhile, a counsel mentioned that he is also filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the stampede.
The High Court also restrained officials from taking any coercive action against RCB and event partner DNA Entertainment Pvt Ltd till June 12, in the stampede incident that killed 11 people. The court adjourned the hearing on petitions filed by Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and DNA Entertainment Pvt Ltd to June 12. In the interim, no coercive action should be taken against the officials of the concerned, it said.
On June 5, the HC had taken suomoto cognizance of the stadium stampede event, and directed the state government to file a status report.
RCB and DNA had moved the court challenging the FIR registered against them in connection with the June 4 stampede that occurred during a celebratory event to mark RCB's maiden IPL triumph a day earlier.
"There is a gentleman's understanding — don't do anything till we take up the matter," the judge told the state government, warning against unnecessary arrest.
The hearing witnessed a sharp exchange of words between senior advocate CV Nagesh, representing RCB and DNA, and Advocate General (AG) Shashikiran Shetty for the state.
Nagesh argued that there was no prima facie case against his clients, and that the allegations were largely composite, involving all three parties — KSCA, RCB and DNA. "Except for one sentence, the entire FIR makes composite allegations against all three. There's no independent case made out against RCB or DNA," Nagesh said, adding that it was not petitioner, but the chief minister of Karnataka who had invited everybody.
But AG Shetty said it was the posts on 'X' by both RCB and DNA that brought people to the stadium. "Thirteen crore people saw it," the AG said, maintaining that RCB had announced the event without required permissions.
"At 10.30 am, without informing the government, they tweeted that there would be a rally. Five lakh people came, and only 21 gates were there. If they had simply opened the gates, lives could have been saved," he argued.
However, Justice Krishna Kumar observed that, "Today, we are not in a position to say whether it was the tweet or the CM's invitation or something else that caused the incident. It's too premature. We're only dealing with a plea for protection from arrest." He also repeatedly asked the state to clarify how the allegations against RCB and DNA differed from those against Karnataka State Cricket Association, to whom the court had earlier granted protection from arrest.
"Except for that one sentence about free passes, everything else seems to be composite," the judge said after reading the FIR and supporting documents. "At one point, the AG expressed concern that the petitioners could destroy evidence if granted protection". The judge responded that the inquiry commission would eventually determine accountability.
"The investigation will reveal who among the three — RCB, DNA, KSCA — is responsible. If it turns out the tweet had no impact, what then?" Justice Krishna Kumar asked.
Meanwhile, Nagesh argued that the FIR invokes offences requiring a deliberate act, not mere omission. "There is no overt act that amounts to an offence here," he said, citing legal provisions that do not criminalise such omissions outside specific statutory frameworks like the Factories Act.
On June 12, apart from hearing petitions filed by RCB and DNA against the FIR, one more related petition, involving a person already arrested, will also be heard.
Follow us
