There is something wrong in the way of HC…Supreme Court’s strong comment in Karur stampede case

New Delhi : The Supreme Court has raised serious questions on the proceedings of the Madras High Court after the horrific stampede incident in Karur in which 41 people were killed during a political program of Vijay’s party Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK). During the hearing on Thursday, Justice J.K. A bench of Justice Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi said that “there is something definitely wrong” in the way the High Court handled the case. This comment was made after seeing the report which the Supreme Court had sought from the Registrar General of Madras High Court in October.

SC’s disagreement regarding juridiction
The Supreme Court asked how the Karur case, which normally falls under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench, was taken over by the Chennai Bench. After reviewing the explanations given in the report, the bench indicated that the procedure did not appear to have been followed properly. The court said that the Registrar General’s report points to a situation which raises questions on the transparency of the judicial system.

From SIT formation to contradictory orders…
The Supreme Court has already expressed concern over why the Chennai bench of the High Court, in a petition in which guidelines were sought only for political rallies, constituted a SIT consisting entirely of Tamil Nadu Police officers. Meanwhile, on the same day, the Madurai bench refused to hand over the case to the CBI, leading to conflicting orders of the two benches. The top court said that these contradictory decisions created confusion in the judicial process.

“If there is a wrong practice then it has to be changed”: Justice Maheshwari
Senior advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the High Court has a tradition of giving orders on all issues related to that subject. On this, Justice Maheshwari said in clear words that if any tradition is wrong, then it cannot be continued.

Demand for reconsideration of CBI investigation rejected
The Tamil Nadu government had requested the Supreme Court to amend its October 13 order, which had mandated the formation of a three-member committee headed by former judge Ajay Rastogi to oversee the CBI investigation and the condition that the two senior IPS officers joining the committee “not be natives of Tamil Nadu”. Political controversy also erupted regarding this condition. However, the Supreme Court refused to change this part.

“The investigation was handed over to CBI without listening to us”…
The Tamil Nadu government, in its affidavit filed last week, alleged that the Supreme Court had violated the principles of natural justice as the order to hand over the investigation to the CBI was given without hearing the state’s side. The government said that petitioner TVK had neither demanded a CBI investigation nor had raised any objection to the SIT, hence there was no basis for changing the investigating agency. The affidavit also said that an accused—here TVK general secretary Aadhav Arjuna—does not have the right to choose the agency for the investigation against him.

Allegation of violation of the Constitution on “non-indigenous” condition
The state government also termed as unconstitutional the Supreme Court’s observation that IPS officers on the monitoring committee should be “not natives of Tamil Nadu”. The affidavit said that this discrimination violates Articles 14 and 15, because it is not appropriate to question the impartiality of an officer on the basis of his birthplace. The same issue was also raised in the Tamil Nadu Assembly on October 15, where Chief Minister M.K. Stalin said that the government will take appropriate steps against this condition.

The stay on the commission’s proceedings remains in place
The state also requested that the stay on the proceedings of the inquiry commission headed by Justice Aruna Jagadeesan be lifted, as the commission would only give suggestions for the future and would not hinder the CBI investigation. But the Supreme Court neither lifted the ban nor issued any new order in this regard.