Karnataka HC On Chinnaswamy Stampede Report
Thanks for studying this submit, do not forget to subscribe!
Karnataka Excessive Courtroom slams sealed cowl submission in RCB stampede case. Amicus says, “Our justice supply system doesn’t approve of such issues. It must be clear.”
Bengaluru: At this time, on July 01, the Karnataka Excessive Courtroom resumed the listening to of the suo motu case taken up in reference to the tragic stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4, 2024, in the course of the celebrations of Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s (RCB) IPL victory.
The incident resulted within the unlucky dying of 11 individuals, prompting the Courtroom to provoke proceedings in public curiosity.
The matter is being heard by a Division Bench comprising Appearing Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice C.M. Joshi.
Also Read: CID to Probe Bengaluru Stadium Stampede That Killed 11: Karnataka Govt Tells High Court
The Courtroom has appointed Senior Advocate S. Susheela as amicus curiae to help within the proceedings. Moreover, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), the occasion organiser DNA Leisure, and the Karnataka State Cricket Affiliation (KSCA) have been added as respondents.
Firstly of the listening to, the Courtroom referred to as upon the Advocate Normal (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty, who appeared on behalf of the State.
Courtroom:
“Sure, Mr. Shetty?”
AG Shashi Kiran Shetty steered a brief deferment, saying:
“The problem might develop into tutorial. If we take it up after 10 days, the report is perhaps prepared, then we might not even must argue whether or not it must be made public.”
Responding firmly, Amicus Curiae S. Susheela questioned the State’s method of submitting the report in a sealed cowl and said:
“In what circumstances may be once they can withhold the doc from public. They gave the report in sealed covers which was not advisable by the court docket. Had it been a daily writ petition, we might have positioned materials by the use of assertion of objections; the copy of the identical could be accessible to everybody.”
She pressed additional, questioning the delay in disclosure:
“I can perceive that this doc can’t be disclosed however why can they not disclose it now however do the identical after 10 days.”
Elevating the priority of transparency, she remarked:
“Our justice supply system doesn’t approve of such issues. It must be clear. Right here what doc is held is protected custody can also be not disclosed and that why it must be assist that method for this time period.”
On the important subject of authorized process, she submitted:
“The query is whether or not these paperwork and the standing report would have an effect on the inquiry. As soon as a standing report is filed earlier than the Courtroom, it basically capabilities like a press release of objections. Can it then be withheld? That is the primary time we’re encountering such a state of affairs.”
She reminded the Courtroom that the matter was not certainly one of confidentiality associated to nationwide safety:
“Right here the case is just not the case of nationwide or state safety. State shouldn’t be afraid to position any doc in entrance of the general public. One side my discovered counsel mentioned that it’s going to have an effect on one other proceedings. They must clarify the identical.”
Referring to authorized ideas governing disclosure, she added:
“In all these selections it has been mentioned that it needs to be decided that whether or not public curiosity is in disclosure of the doc or not.”
Bringing within the doctrine of proportionality, the amicus famous:
“If the doctrine of proportionality is utilized, the important thing query turns into whether or not public curiosity favours disclosure of the knowledge. This subject has been thought of in a number of judgments. The Courtroom must weigh proportionality, confidentiality issues, and public curiosity,” she submitted.
In reply, AG Shetty tried to justify the confidentiality, stating that the judicial fee had been constituted solely just lately and that the standing report shouldn’t intrude with ongoing inquiries:
“On the time the Courtroom handed its order, solely a magisterial inquiry was in place, the judicial fee had not but been constituted. Now that the fee has drawn sure conclusions, the State’s statements within the standing report shouldn’t be relied upon in both the judicial or magisterial inquiries, to make sure these proceedings stay unbiased.”
He clarified that the State is just not invoking nationwide or state safety pursuits and solely seeks a 10-day confidentiality to keep away from influencing different proceedings:
“We’re not claiming nationwide or state curiosity. I simply need the neutral report to return out after contemplating everybody’s perspective—the victims, administration, state, and many others. Kindly have it after 10 days. It’s all tutorial.”
He pleaded with the Courtroom:
“I simply don’t need the difficulty to be prejudged.”
The Courtroom briefly intervened, stating:
“They’re entitled to….”
To which the AG responded:
“Your lordships they’re definitely entitled to I’m simply saying that do it after 10 days.”
One other counsel supporting the general public curiosity angle mentioned:
“This isn’t an adversarial litigation. In the end, the Courtroom has rightly chosen to deal with this as a public curiosity matter to border broader tips. This continuing isn’t meant to gather proof—two separate inquiries are already underway the place proof is being recorded. The true query earlier than the Courtroom is: How ought to such large-scale occasions be organized to forestall tragedies like this sooner or later?”
Emphasizing that the State’s intention was not everlasting secrecy, one other lawyer clarified:
“The state doesn’t wish to preserve it in seal perpetually. They only need 10 days. They only need confidentiality for 10 days so it doesn’t influence the fee of inquiry. That’s all I’m saying.”
Nonetheless unconvinced, the amicus curiae reiterated her stand:
“Only one level so as to add. Mr. AG sought a 10-day deferment citing the standing report and suggesting its contents could also be true or partially true, however I don’t imagine that’s a tenable or acceptable place to take.”
AG responded firmly in protection of the State’s efforts:
“I simply don’t need it to create a prejudice.”
He additional asserted the State’s proactive method:
“Right here the state has carried out rather more than anybody else than in India in any stampede case. Please soak up consideration all these features. It’s going to all be given to them in 10 days.”
The Courtroom then handed instructions, noting that KSCA and RCB have already filed their replies, and that DNA Leisure has assured that their reply shall be submitted by tomorrow. The Courtroom instructed that each one responses be shared with the State and the amicus curiae.
Through the dialogue, a suggestion was floated relating to imposing a media ban to forestall untimely publication of the State’s standing report.
Nonetheless, it was emphasised that the respondents should nonetheless have entry to the report, and that transparency should stay on the forefront.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stampede
