Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 5) took suo motu cognisance of the Wednesday stampede incident that took place outside the Chinnaswamy stadium where an event was organised to celebrate the victory of Royal Challenger Bangalore (RCB) in the 2025 Indian Premier League (IPL) final and directed the state government to file a detailed status report.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice VK Rao and Justice CM Joshi directed the registry to treat the matter as a suo motu public interest litigation petition.
The bench issued notice to the state government of Karnataka and directed the state government to file a detailed status report by by June 10, when the matter would be heard next.
The bench during the hearing observed that when such events take place, there must be an SOP in place and ambulances and details of nearest hospitals should be there and said that the court is taking cognisance of the incident to ascertain the cause of tragedy and how to prevent such tragedies in future.
Eleven persons lost their lives and 56 were injured in the Wednesday stampede incident, as a large number of people thronged to the Chinnaswamy stadium to participate in the RCB team’s IPL victory celebrations.
The matter was earlier during the day mentioned before the bench and it had agreed to hear the matter at 2.30 PM.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, who appeared for the state of Karnataka, told the court that police made security arrangements and a large number of security personnel were deployed in the city for victory celebrations, however, two and half lakh people assembled at the stadium, which has the capacity of about 30,000, and the stampede took place after free entry was announced.
Shetty, who gave details of the incidents to the bench, also informed the court that a magisterial inquiry into the incident has already commenced and notices have been issued to all including event manager and a report is expected in next few days and it would be placed before the court.
The Advocate General, during the hearing, said that the state government has taken the issue with utmost seriousness and focus would be on measures to avoid such incidents in future.
The counsel appearing for a petitioner stated that the incident was an act of criminal negligence and added that the State was completely masking it.
