SC Questions Madras HC Order for SIT Probe into Karur Stampede, Pg7.

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court bench questioned how a single-judge bench of the Madras High Court could order an SIT probe when a Division Bench had already taken cognisance of the same issue.
• The matter concerns the September 27 Karur crowd crush during Vijay’s rally, where 41 people were killed.
• Justice Sanjiv Khanna, heading the SC bench, observed that “such parallel orders undermine the propriety of the judicial process.”
• The HC’s Division Bench had already directed the Tamil Nadu government to conduct an internal probe, while the single-judge order came barely 4–5 hours later.
• Senior Advocate C. Aryama Sundaram, representing TVK, argued that the duplication of orders created confusion and amounted to judicial overreach.
• The State government has also challenged the single-judge order before the Supreme Court.

Detailed Insights:

• Judicial Propriety Issue:
  • The SC stressed that when a Division Bench (a higher judicial authority within the same High Court) is seized of a matter, a single judge should refrain from passing independent or conflicting orders.
  • This ensures hierarchical discipline and prevents contradictory judicial directions.
• Background:
  • The Madras HC Division Bench had already initiated proceedings regarding the tragedy and the government’s accountability.
  • Despite this, the single-judge bench separately ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe alleged negligence.
• Legal Principle: Judicial discipline mandates that parallel benches avoid adjudicating identical matters, to preserve institutional integrity.
• Current Status:
  • The Supreme Court has issued notices and is likely to decide whether the SIT probe order stands valid or violates judicial procedure.
  • Several petitions have also been filed seeking a CBI probe, alleging political motives behind the crowd management failures.

Scientific/Technical Concepts Involved:

• Special Investigation Team (SIT): A team constituted either by courts or governments to investigate serious or sensitive cases, often comprising senior police officers.
• Judicial Review: The power of higher courts to examine the legality or procedural propriety of subordinate court or administrative actions.
• Doctrine of Judicial Discipline: Ensures coherence in judicial functioning and prevents conflicting judgments within the same jurisdiction.