The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction to prescribe uniform, binding guidelines for crowd management at political rallies and large public congregations across the country, holding that such matters predominantly fell within the executive and administrative domain and were best addressed by subject-matter experts and law enforcement authorities rather than through judicial mandates.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a public interest writ petition invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, which sought pan-India directions to prevent stampede-related fatalities at political events, religious congregations and other mass gatherings.
The petition asserted that a significant number of deaths caused by stampedes were avoidable and stemmed from systemic regulatory failures.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that nearly 4,000 lives had been lost in stampede incidents over the past two decades, attributing the recurring tragedies to the absence of a comprehensive national policy framework, the lack of standard operating procedures, and even the absence of a statutory or regulatory definition of the term stampede.
It was argued that this regulatory vacuum resulted in ad hoc crowd control measures, poor inter-agency coordination and inconsistent enforcement across States.
The Bench, however, expressed serious reservations about the practicality and enforceability of judicially crafted directions.
The CJI observed that courts must be circumspect in issuing orders that are incapable of effective implementation on the ground, cautioning against directions that may prove unworkable or unmanageable in real-world situations. The Court questioned whether it could realistically impose conditions capable of uniform compliance across diverse factual scenarios.
By way of illustration, the Bench referred to political rallies, noting that while administrative authorities may regulate protests by designating venues and ensuring minimal disruption to public order, it would be virtually impossible for courts to mandate numerical caps on attendance. The Court queried how authorities could respond when attendance far exceeds a venue’s capacity, underscoring the limits of judicial oversight in dynamic crowd situations.
In response, the petitioner clarified that the reliefs sought were not intended to impose rigid numerical ceilings but to establish baseline safety benchmarks through standardised operating procedures. It was pointed out that certain States, including Tamil Nadu, have notified guidelines governing political rallies, whereas others lack any formal regulatory framework, leading to uneven standards of public safety.
The Bench remained unconvinced that such policy formulation could be judicially directed, while acknowledging that limited regulatory measures—such as earmarking designated protest zones and ensuring crowd regulation to safeguard vulnerable groups including senior citizens, schoolchildren and hospital patients—are constitutionally permissible and administratively desirable.
The order records that the petition sought directions to the Union of India and the Election Commission of India for framing mandatory crowd control norms, creating a centralised digital platform to regulate political rallies nationwide, and instituting a National Crowd Management and Safety Code incorporating real-time surveillance, risk assessment protocols and modern technological interventions at major public venues.
Ultimately, the Court held that the substantive reliefs sought were essentially in the nature of policy formulation, an area traditionally reserved for the executive under the doctrine of separation of powers. Relying on settled jurisprudence that courts should refrain from entering the policy arena unless there is a clear constitutional or statutory violation—such as in cases akin to Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan or Prakash Singh v. Union of India—the Bench declined to issue mandatory directions.
The Court permitted the petitioner to pursue representations before the Union Government and granted liberty to submit the writ petition, in the form of a representation, to the Election Commission of India. The matter was accordingly disposed of, leaving it to the competent authorities to examine the suggestions and take appropriate action if deemed necessary.
The petitioner, a former legislator, Union Cabinet Minister, Rajya Sabha member and ex-Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture, stated that his extensive public life and first-hand exposure to the aftermath of stampede incidents prompted the litigation. He claimed to have witnessed deaths caused by asphyxiation and overcrowding, exacerbated by the absence of medical facilities, clear signage, trained marshals and effective police deployment.
The petition further highlighted the adverse impact of unregulated rallies and roadshows on civic life, alleging routine obstruction of ambulances, delays in medical emergencies, disruption of examinations, and widespread inconvenience to commuters missing flights and trains. It contended that public roads, statutorily предназнач for transportation, are frequently appropriated for political events without accountability, thereby endangering public safety and violating citizens’ right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d).
Among the principal prayers, the PIL sought the formulation of a National Crowd Management and Safety Code, mandatory pre-event registration and safety certification, stringent venue audits, prohibition of rallies on roads narrower than four lanes, and confinement of political events to designated grounds and maidans.
It also sought enhanced supervisory powers for the Election Commission of India during pre-election and post-election periods, including authority to prohibit unsafe gatherings and impose penal consequences for violations.
The post Supreme Court refuses to lay guidelines for crowd management at rallies appeared first on India Legal.