SC to hear tomorrow DMK plea alleging witness influence in Karur stampede probe

THe sublime margaret court testament try on tues a plea filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) alleging that ministers in the ruling Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) government, who are accused in last year’s Karur stampede case, are influencing witnesses in the court-monitored Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe.A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu agreed to urgently list the application after it was mentioned by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi on behalf of DMK Rajya Sabha MP RS Bharathi.Ahmadi told the court that with the TVK assuming power in Tamil Nadu in May this year, the fairness of the investigation into the September 27, 2025, Karur stampede had been jeopardised.“Some of the accused in the case have now become Ministers. They are influencing witnesses. There is serious apprehension that this will influence the ongoing probe. The next date in the case is July 10,” Ahmadi submitted. The stampede claimed 41 lives and left more than 100 people injured.Accepting the request, the bench posted the matter for hearing on Tuesday.The stampede occurred during a rally addressed by TVK president C Joseph Vijay, who is now the chief minister of Tamil Nadu.In his application, Bharathi alleged that after coming to power, the TVK government proposed distributing government jobs and other benefits to families of the stampede victims, while ministers accused in the case had made public statements that threatened to compromise the ongoing investigation.The plea noted that, considering the gravity of the incident, the Supreme Court had ordered a CBI probe in October 2025. Dissatisfied with the state investigation, the court had further directed that the probe be monitored by a three-member supervisory committee headed by former Supreme Court judge justice Ajay Rastogi.Describing the present situation as an “extraordinary circumstance”, the application stated: “Now, after coming to power, the State government proposes to extend further benefits, including compassionate appointments and other welfare measures, to the same families, who are also material witnesses in the CBI investigation.”“In these exceptional circumstances, where the investigation is still pending, any direct interaction with such material witnesses by persons connected with the subject matter of the investigation or by the political executive presently in office, particularly while distributing benefits arising out of the very incident under investigation, has the potential to give rise to an apprehension, whether real or perceived, regarding the fairness and independence of the investigative process,” the plea added.The DMK clarified that it was not opposed to compensation or government jobs for the victims’ families but argued that such measures should be implemented only with safeguards directed by the Supreme Court and after consultation with the CBI to ensure the integrity of the investigation.The application also referred to a recent speech by state public works minister Aadhav Arjuna, an accused in the case, in which he blamed the previous DMK government for the deaths and vowed to settle scores despite the investigation being underway. The plea said such statements were capable of influencing witnesses and undermining a court-monitored probe.The application further sought directions restraining chief minister Vijay, minister Arjuna and other accused or persons connected with the investigation from making public statements attributing criminal liability or commenting on the merits of the pending probe. It also urged the court to direct the CBI to examine Arjuna’s speech as an attempt to interfere with the investigation.While ordering the CBI inquiry, the Supreme Court had observed that the tragedy appeared, prima facie, to have resulted from the Tamil Nadu police’s failure to take adequate precautions. The court noted that permission had been granted for the rally at a location connected to a national highway despite similar requests having previously been rejected on safety grounds, and found that the police had failed to ensure adequate crowd-control measures. It had also observed that the “political overtones” surrounding the case had eroded confidence in the state investigation, making an independent probe necessary.