The Supreme Court refused to entertain an application filed by DMK Organizing Secretary R.S. Bharathi, which sought to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and other ministers from interacting with victims' families or making public statements about last year's tragic Karur stampede.

The DMK had raised serious apprehensions of witness tampering ahead of the Chief Minister's scheduled July 10 visit to Karur to distribute government jobs and compassionate aid, particularly following controversial remarks by State Minister Aadhav Arjuna targeting the previous regime.

However, the bench questioned the legal basis of the plea, correcting the DMK's factual claim that the Chief Minister was named as an accused in the case and warning against turning the judiciary into a political forum. 

The Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe ordered, "Having heard Mr. Ranjith Kumar, Senior Counsel for the applicant, he seeks leave to withdraw this application to pursue such remedies as may be available to the applicant in accordance with the law. We dismiss the application as withdrawn on the above terms."


Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar represented DMK Secretary R.S. Bharathi, while Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the Opposite Parties.

 Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to list the plea alleging "active influencing" of witnesses by Tamil Nadu ministers in last year's Karur stampede case.

An urgent application was filed by DMK Organizing Secretary R.S. Bharathi. The plea sought to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, state minister Aadhav Arjuna, and other accused individuals from interacting with the victims' families or making public statements about the case while the CBI probe is ongoing.

Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar argued that the accused in the Karur stampede case were actively building a public narrative. He contended that while the DMK did not oppose the distribution of government compensation, such aid should not be directly distributed by individuals facing criminal charges. Kumar further asserted that the accused were making press statements that defied previous judicial boundaries, drawing a parallel to the strict bail conditions historically imposed on other political figures like Arvind Kejriwal.

Justice KV Viswanathan strongly questioned the basis of the application, asking whether the DMK expected the Supreme Court to regulate the Chief Minister's public messaging or place an injunction on free speech. The judge emphasized that the appropriate counter to political speech was more speech from the opposing side. He expressed reluctance to turn the Supreme Court into a political forum, questioning how the bench could continuously issue orders regarding a political rival's statements when an independent CBI investigation had already been ordered and was being actively monitored.

Justice Viswanathan remarked, "Who is accused number one? The executive head is not even named there. Even your application and your FIR (First Information Report) registered by the previous government do not record the Chief Minister as an accused. You check your facts...The FIR registered by the state government before this court ordered the CBI transfer recorded some accused. Those are the facts. But today, to make this court a political court, I do not know..."

Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar said, "I will put it a little differently. There is a monitoring committee which has also been constituted by Justice Rastogi, which is a three-member committee to monitor the investigation. Now, if I may be permitted, if the court is so inclined, I will show that this kind of narrative is being built and the investigation is being influenced in some way."

Justice Viswanathan said, "We don't know what you can do, what you cannot do, but this application...you will be best advised not to proceed here because we are inclined to dismiss it."

The application flagged concerns over potential witness tampering ahead of CM Vijay’s scheduled July 10 visit to Karur, where he is slated to distribute government jobs and compassionate aid to the families.

While the DMK stated it does not oppose the welfare measures, it argues that the families are key witnesses in the court-monitored investigation.

The Plea also sought action against Minister Aadhav Arjuna—an accused in the case—for his July 2 remarks alleging that the previous DMK government "killed Karur people through the police," claiming the comments are a deliberate attempt to manipulate the narrative.

On October 13, last year, the Apex Court ordered a CBI probe into the stampede, saying the incident had shaken the national conscience and deserved a fair and impartial investigation.

In its order on a plea by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) for an independent probe, the Apex Court had also set up a three-member supervisory committee headed by former apex court judge Ajay Rastogi to monitor the CBI investigation.

Suspending the directions for the appointment of SIT and a one-man enquiry commission, the apex court had asked the Tamil Nadu government to extend full cooperation to the officers of the central agency.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the interlocutory application as withdrawn, granting the applicant liberty only to pursue standard remedies available under the law.

Cause Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. PH Dinesh [SLP(Crl) No. 16539/2025]

Tags: