Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Saturday, June 14, 2025

Accountability Must Be Fixed On Chinnaswamy Stadium Stampede

Posted in: Civil Laws
Wed, Jun 11, 25, 16:42, 3 Days ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 16561
Karnataka HC takes suo motu action on Bengaluru stadium stampede; seeks answers on lapses that led to 11 deaths and 66 injuries at RCB celebration

It is certainly in the fitness of things that the Karnataka High Court on June 5, 2025 has decided to register a suo motu case over the stampede that took place on June 4, 2025 outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium at Bengaluru while revelling in joy to celebrate Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s (RCB) maiden victory in IPL-2025 and sought a status report on this most pressing matter from the State of Karnataka. It claimed the lives of 11 people and about 66 injured! What is most hurting, saddening, devastating and shocking is that all of them were young men and women who were under 30 years either pursuing their college studies mostly or newly engaged in some job like civil engineer and Chartered Accountant!

The message from the families of those who lost their young children was very loud and clear:
This tragedy could definitely have been prevented and those who are responsible must be punished most strictly and accountability must be fixed on all those who are responsible for this chaotic state of affairs that led to loss of so many promising young talent so early in life!

In this regard, it would be pertinent to note that a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court comprising of Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Hon’ble Mr Justice CM Joshi while taking suo motu cognizance asked the Karnataka State Government whether permissions had been sought to organize such celebrations, whether a standard operating procedure existed for managing crowds above 50,000 and if immediate medical help was extended.

The Karnataka Advocate General – Mr KM Shashikiran briefed the court on this in detail. It will be heard now on June 10 after perusing the status report as will be submitted by the State of Karnataka. What is most shocking is that the stadium which had capacity of just about 30,000 as told by the Karnataka State Government to the Court and yet about 3 lakh people reportedly gathered near the stadium after announcements of free public entry to the celebratory event for Royal Challengers Bengaluru.

As things stands, the Division Bench also directed the government to file a comprehensive status report addressing nine specific questions by June 10. Those nine questions are as follows:

  1. Who decided to hold the victory celebration? In what manner and when?
  2. Was any permission sought to organize the event?
  3. Whether any SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) has been formulated to manage a crowd of 50,000 and above in any sports event and celebrations of this nature?
  4. What steps were taken to regulate the traffic?
  5. What steps were taken to regulate the public/crowd?
  6. What medical and other facilities were arranged at the venue?
  7. Was any assessment made in advance on the number of people who may be present at the time of celebrations?
  8. Whether persons injured were given immediate medical attention by the medical experts at the venue? If not, why?
  9. How much time was taken to take the injured to the hospitals?

Needless to say, no money and no inquiry and no punishment can ever bring back those lost young lives who had just started to kickstart their lives which makes this particular incident most saddening! But still it merits just no reiteration that accountability must definitely be fixed and it brooks no delay in such cases like this! Those who are responsible for this most unsavoury incident must definitely be brought to book.

Truth be told, there are many key questions that crop up and swirl about this most unwarranted tragedy which has regrettably claimed so many young and most promising lives! Some questions of which I am mentioning here and they are as follows:-
 

  1. Who decided to hold celebrations the very next day?
  2. Did RCB or KSCA or Karnataka State Government or all unitedly decide to hold the celebrations the very next day?
  3. Who decided to hold two celebrations?
  4. Who organized the Chinnaswamy celebrations?
  5. Who applied for police permission?
  6. Did police say no to the stadium event?
  7. Did they want RCB to wait a few days?
  8. If the police said no to the victory parade, how come RCB tweeted about it?
  9. Why police did not make any objections to the tweet?
  10. Did police issue advisory on not holding the event?
  11. Who decided that passes would be free which resulted in huge rush?
  12. Was it communicated in time about free pass?
  13. When did the first death get reported?
  14. Why did the Vidhana Soudha celebrations continue if the crowds had already swelled at the stadium?
  15. Why, to say the very least, weren’t there adequate ambulances and medical arrangements also for such a big mega event?
  16. Why many senior police officers were not present?
  17. Why was it decided to go ahead with the second event after news of the stampede?
  18. Was the second event more important than the lives of the innocents?
  19. What traffic and crowd regulations were in place?
  20. Whether medical arrangements were made in advance?
  21. Whether those injured were given timely medical attention?
  22. Was it because of police lathicharge that stampede occurred?
  23. Who was the police officer who ordered lathicharge?
  24. Was police lathicharge necessary?
  25. Did the police department issue necessary safety directions?
  26. Did the organizers work within the framework of the directions that had been issued by the police department?
  27. Why such a huge crowd was allowed to assemble at the first place which culminated in death of so many innocent lives?
  28. Why additional police was not called into action considering the huge crowd of more than 3 lakh people to manage them effectively?
  29. Why there was delay in providing medical aid to the injured?
  30. Why safety measures were not taken as required when such a mega event is held?
  31. Why there was poor crowd management at entry and exit points?
  32. Why all 21 gates were not opened?
  33. Finally and far most significantly, why was it that:
    Only three gates of the stadium were opened and stampede occurred only at Gate Nos. 3, 12 and 18 where there was lot of jostling among fans to enter or climb barriers and all death occurred there?


Having said this, it is definitely in the fitness of things that while taking most prompt action, the Chief Minister of Karnataka – Mr Siddaramaiah has announced that Bengaluru Police Commissioner B. Dayananda and all the officials responsible for the jurisdiction where the stadium is have been suspended, pending inquiry.

What also merits mentioning is that CM Siddaramaiah also announced a judicial inquiry by a one-man Commission that is led by former Karnataka High Court Judge – Hon’ble Mr Justice (Retd) Michael D’ Cunha who enjoys an absolute impeccable reputation and who came into huge prominence in 2014 when as the Special Judge trying cases against lawmakers, he displayed the guts, gall and gumption to convict the then most powerful Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa in a disproportionate assets case. It must be noted that CM also had informed the press also about the decision that had been taken at the State Cabinet Meeting that was held on June 5, 2025 to probe into this most unfortunate incident. Very rightly so!

It must be also laid bare here that the police invoked Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 115 (voluntarily causing hurt), 118 (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by using dangerous weapons or means), 121 (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 190 (liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in pursuit of a common object), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their duty), and 125 (12) (acts endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

We thus see that soon after the astounding stampede incident, the Cubbon Park Police have registered an FIR (Crime No. 123/2025) that has been lodged against RCB franchise, DNA Entertainment Private Limited which is the event management company and so also the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) charging them for culpable homicide and other serious charges as mentioned hereinaforesaid.

What also sources in the media reported is that even as the city police claimed that Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) conducted the event at the stadium despite being denied police permission, it came to light that the security deployment at the venue was inadequate and senior officials in charge were not present on site when the stampede occurred. It would be instructive to note that this high profile case has now been formally transferred to the CID by the Karnataka State Government with directions to constitute the Special Investigating Team (SIT) for further action.

It also merits mentioning that it is pointed out in the FIR that:
The first information of a victory celebration came at 6 pm on June 3, even before the first ball had been bowled at the Narendra Modi stadium in Ahmedabad, when RCB CEO Shubhash Ghante allegedly asked for a victory celebration programme to be held at the Chinnaswamy Stadium the next day. The Vidhana Soudha event passed off peacefully but at Chinnaswamy Stadium, the organizers ‘failed to make decisions about allowing fans inside the stadium’ and closed the gates from the inside at 3.10 pm. It was also confirmed that the programme began inside the stadium at 5.45 pm – long after the first body was taken to a city hospital.

It is also pointed out in the FIR as reported in media that:
DNA, KSCA administrative committee, and RCB franchise failed to take proper decisions about M Chinnaswamy Cricket Stadium entry at the right time, causing confusion among thousands of RCB fans, leading to thousands of fans gathering uncontrollably, attempting to break barriers, set up by police for entry, ignoring police advice and not following instructions pushing police and causing injuries, disrupting public traffic, causing 11 deaths.

All said and done, it must be without fail underscored again at the risk of repetition that those who are guilty of being complacent in ensuring the safety of people who had gathered for watching the victory parade must be brought to book immediately and so also must be certainly made to face the legal action for their glaring lapses that led to the most unfortunate stampede in which all young men and women below 30 years of age lost their most precious lives which cannot come back to life again!

It is a no-brainer that all the political parties must also definitely refrain from making political capital out of it and should trust the judiciary to deliver most firmly and wait patiently instead of trying to fish in troubled waters! Of course, this is certainly not the right moment to score political brownie points and it is beyond a straw of doubt that the whole nation must definitely stand fully united in this hour of extreme grief just like we stood so firmly speaking in one voice after the most ghastly Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir and so also full focus should be ostensibly to figure out the reasons as to what went wrong which culminated in such a deadly stampede!

No doubt, if right lessons are not taken from this unsavoury episode and corrective and safety measures are not implemented most promptly in not just Karnataka where this horrifying tragedy occurred but all over India most strictly, such ghastly incidents are undoubtedly bound to recur time and again! It also must be underscored that this ghastly incident is a stark reminder that no matter how much we be happy on a team winning any cup even the world cup itself, we should never be so over excited as to lose our balance or drop our guard down which will only land us in deepest trouble dragging us to the jaws of death as most unfortunately happened in Bengaluru and victory march should take place if at all only after few days and not most promptly as happened in Bengaluru! There can be definitely just no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top