heyOn October 13, the Supreme Court suddenly put the brakes on the fresh investigation into the Karur stampede (on September 27, 41 people were killed during a stampede at a political rally organized by actor-cum-politician Vijay in Tamil Nadu’s Karur district) by the Madras High Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the state-appointed commission of inquiry headed by Justice (retd) Aruna Jagadeesan.
Both the SIT and Justice Jagadeesan were directed to immediately hand over the papers and evidence to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officials. The top court’s decision to hand over the Karur stampede investigation to the CBI was driven by two “widespread” factors – the “political aspects” of the case and a perception that top-ranking Tamil Nadu police officers made comments at a press conference to such an extent that their subordinates were at no fault. A division bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and NV Anjaria concluded that the conduct of senior state police officers “may create doubt in the minds of citizens about the fairness and impartiality of the investigation”, making it necessary to transfer it to the CBI.
CBI is a central agency governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which has its origins in the Special Police Establishment (SPE) formed in 1941 to eliminate corruption in wartime procurement. Once coined by the Supreme Court as the Centre’s “caged parrot”, the CBI is considered a premier investigative body that investigates a wide range of crimes with inter-state and national ramifications.
The top court’s reasoning, however, is based entirely on the pleas and “extensive observations” of the petitioners. Prima facie Evidence to show that the SIT investigation was biased is not sufficient to transfer a case to the CBI without the express consent of the state government. Although it is well established that a constitutional court can order a CBI investigation because judicial review is part of the basic structure, the court, be it the Supreme Court or a state high court, should not direct a CBI investigation in a “regular manner”. A judicial order to transfer an investigation to the CBI is only a ‘last resort’.
‘the last resort’
The Supreme Court has a well-developed jurisprudence, developed through judgments, that imposes significant self-restraint on the exercise of the extraordinary constitutional power to order a CBI investigation under Article 32 (for the Supreme Court) or Article 226 (for the High Court) of the Constitution. The apex court has observed that the inherent powers to direct the CBI to investigate should be exercised “with restraint, caution and only in exceptional circumstances”. The court has consistently cautioned that a CBI investigation should not be directed “merely because a party makes certain allegations or lacks subjective confidence in the state police”.
“It is needless to say that in order to invoke this power, the court concerned must be satisfied with the material produced Prima facie “Discloses the commission of an offense and requires a CBI investigation to ensure the fundamental right to a fair and impartial investigation, or where the complexity, scale, or national impact of such allegations requires the expertise of the Central Agency,” the court has explained.
Judicial precedents have underlined that while an order directing an investigation by the CBI should be treated as a “last resort”, it is appropriate only when the Constitutional Court is convinced that the integrity of the process has been compromised or it has reasons to believe that it may be compromised to such an extent that it would shake the conscience of the courts or public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Such circumstances compelling the transfer of judicial investigation from the State Police to the CBI may generally arise when the material is placed on record before the Court. Prima facie Points to systemic failure, involvement of high-ranking state officials or politically influential persons, or when the conduct of the local police itself raises reasonable doubts in the minds of citizens about their ability to conduct impartial investigations.
In the absence of these factors, constitutional courts should avoid unnecessarily burdening a particular agency with “cases that do not meet the threshold of an exceptional case”.
reason for change
The Supreme Court’s 25-page order handing over the Karur stampede investigation to the CBI reveals that the decision was largely based on “allegations” raised by the petitioners, who have been identified as relatives of the victims and public-spirited individuals.
The court said 41 people lost their lives and over 100 were injured at a rally organized by Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) founder Vijay at Velusamypuram in Karur district. The court said the petitioners have “alleged” that the ruling government, which has “control over the vast machinery of the State”, did not discharge its functions “properly”. In this context, the bench noted in the petitions that top police officers held a press conference during which they “strongly” defended their colleagues, raising apprehensions that the investigation by the SIT comprising Tamil Nadu police officers would not be impartial. It recorded submissions in the petitions that the police had earlier, in January, refused permission to another political party to hold a rally at the same venue where the tragedy occurred during the TVK programme. The court expressed this vague notion to indicate “political undertones” in the game.
These factors led the Court to Prima facie Conclude that there were “doubts in the minds of the general public about the independence and impartiality of the investigation” and that victims should be protected from becoming embroiled in a “political feud between the two parties”.
previous decisions
A cursory reading of the order reveals that the decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI was based solely on the allegations made by the petitioners. Supreme Court decision Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering. services up It observed that the court’s power to transfer the investigation to the CBI can be exercised “only in cases where there is sufficient material to arrive at a conclusion.” Prima facie The conclusion is that such investigation is needed. Having such material in the arguments is not enough.”
Secondly, the Supreme Court did not specify a single instance of bias or delay by the Tamil Nadu Police SIT. In a Constitution Bench decision in State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic RightsThe top court had held that the extraordinary power to transfer the investigation to the CBI “cannot and should not be exercised in a routine manner without examining the complexities, nature of the crime and sometimes slow progress in the investigation involving high officials of the state investigating agency”.
In the order written by Justice Maheshwari himself in the case dated October 16, 2025 Legislative Council UP vs Sushil KumarThe judge said that public order (Entry 1) and police (Entry 2) were state subjects falling in List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Justice Maheshwari had written, “It is the primary responsibility of the investigating agency of the State Police to investigate all crimes occurring within its jurisdiction. The investigation can be handed over to the CBI only in exceptional circumstances.” In KV Rajendran vs Superintendent of Police, CBCIDThe top court had held that transfer of a case to the CBI could be justified only by showing sufficient material to prove that the state’s investigation was dishonest or malicious.
Third, the vague findings regarding “political tone”, “political tussle between the two parties” and alleged comments made by police officials at a press conference cannot be grounds to intrude into the power of a state to investigate crimes within its jurisdiction, especially when Tamil Nadu had withdrawn its general consent for a CBI investigation in 2023. The Supreme Court has constituted a committee headed by former apex court judge, Justice Ajay Rastogi. Monitor the CBI investigation. There is no legal support for such a system.
Apart from this, Madras High Court had constituted a separate SIT in the Karur stampede case. Justice Jagadeesan Commission of Inquiry was constituted on the very night of the tragedy. No allegation of specific bias was made against the SIT or the investigating commission, necessitating a change in the investigating agency. The Madras High Court had earlier also refused a specific demand for transfer to the CBI. In Sri Sri Ram Janaki Sthan Tapovan Temple In the judgment, the top court had held that it is not the job of the judiciary to make sweeping comments about the state government and its officials and subject them to CBI investigation merely on the basis of allegations brought before it. The court said that the judiciary has to understand that “the functioning of the government is carried out by different authorities and there are inherent checks and balances in the functioning of the executive”.
published – October 22, 2025 08:30 AM IST
