The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an interlocutory application filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) seeking directions to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay, State Minister Aadhav Arjuna and other accused persons from making public statements or engaging in conduct that could allegedly prejudice the ongoing Court-monitored Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the Karur stampede case.
The application further sought regulation of the Chief Minister’s proposed interaction with the families of the victims during the pendency of the investigation.
The partial working day Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe expressed its unwillingness to entertain the plea. Following the Court’s observations, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the applicant, sought permission to withdraw the application. The Bench dismissed it as withdrawn while granting liberty to the applicant to pursue any other remedy available under law.
The application was filed by DMK Organising Secretary and Rajya Sabha MP RS Bharati in the proceedings in which the Supreme Court transferred the investigation into the Karur stampede to the CBI in 2025. It was mentioned urgently ahead of the Chief Minister’s proposed visit on July 10 to meet the families of the deceased and injured victims for distribution of ex gratia compensation and compassionate appointment orders.
During the hearing, the applicant submitted that statements allegedly being made by TVK leaders and Ministers were creating a public narrative regarding the stampede despite the ongoing CBI investigation. It was argued that such public comments were contrary to the spirit of the Supreme Court’s earlier order transferring the probe to an independent investigating agency.
Questioning the relief sought, Justice Viswanathan observed that the Court could not regulate the Chief Minister’s official visit or determine his itinerary.
When the applicant clarified that the principal grievance related to public comments made by the Chief Minister and Ministers on the merits of the case, the Bench questioned whether the Court could impose an injunction restraining political speech. The Court observed that political rivals could respond through public discourse and questioned how a political opponent could seek such directions in proceedings where the investigation had already been entrusted to the CBI.
The Bench also asked how the proposed distribution of Rs 10 lakh as ex gratia compensation and compassionate appointment orders to the victims’ families would prejudice or interfere with the investigation. In response, the applicant submitted that Vijay was both the head of the political executive and the first accused in the matter.
Justice Viswanathan immediately clarified that the Chief Minister had not been named as an accused in any of the FIRs registered in connection with the stampede. Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the respondents, also confirmed that Vijay was not an accused in the criminal case. The Bench observed that the Supreme Court could not be converted into a forum for adjudicating political disputes.
After indicating that it was not inclined to grant the relief sought, the Bench advised the applicant to withdraw the application. The applicant then requested liberty to raise the grievance before the committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd), which has been constituted by the Supreme Court to monitor the CBI investigation.
It was also submitted that a separate contempt petition was proposed to be filed against Minister Aadhav Arjuna over certain public remarks allegedly made by him concerning the case. Recording the withdrawal, the Bench dismissed the application with liberty to pursue any remedy available under law.
The DMK leader clarified in the application that there was no objection to the State extending financial assistance or other welfare measures to the victims. However, it was contended that the families of the deceased and injured were material witnesses in the ongoing CBI investigation and that direct interaction between such witnesses and persons allegedly connected with the subject matter of the investigation, or members of the political executive, could create a reasonable apprehension regarding the fairness and impartiality of the investigation.
The application further pointed out that Vijay had earlier distributed Rs 20 lakh each to the families of those who died in the stampede and Rs 2 lakh each to the injured victims in October 2025 while criminal proceedings relating to the incident were still pending.
According to the applicant, the earlier financial assistance, coupled with the proposed distribution of government benefits after assuming office and public statements allegedly made by an accused Minister, justified judicial safeguards to protect the integrity of the court-monitored investigation.
Another grievance related to a public statement allegedly made by Minister Aadhav Arjuna on July 2, 2026. Referring to his reported remarks that there was a score to settle in relation to the Karur incident and his allegation that the previous DMK government had caused the deaths of Karur residents through police action, the application contended that such statements were intended to influence the ongoing investigation.
It was argued that an accused person holding public office should not attempt to shape the public narrative while the investigation was in progress, as such conduct could prejudice the investigation and influence public perception regarding criminal liability.
The applicant sought directions restraining Chief Minister Vijay, Minister Aadhav Arjuna, Bussy Anand, CTR Nirmal Kumar and other accused from making any public statements attributing criminal liability or commenting on the merits of the pending investigation.
It also prayed that any further distribution of government benefits to the victims’ families should be undertaken only after safeguards approved by the Supreme Court and after informing the CBI so that the evidence of material witnesses remained unaffected. Additionally, the applicant sought a direction to the CBI to initiate appropriate proceedings against Aadhav Arjuna over his July 2 remarks on the grounds that they allegedly amounted to influencing witnesses and obstructing the ongoing investigation.
The post Karur stampede: Supreme Court rejects DMK plea seeking restraint on TVK Ministers amid CBI probe appeared first on India Legal.