New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (February 3) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the wake of recent stampede at Prayagraj Mahakumbh and directed the petitioner to approach the Allahabad High Court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, while refusing to entertain the PIL, said that it is something of concern and it is an unfortunate incident but directed the petitioner to move the High Court.
“It is something of concern and it is an unfortunate incident. But move the (Allahabad) High Court,” the bench said.
![Auspicious Ahoi Ashtami Rangoli Designs [Video Tutorials]](https://www.indiapostlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Auspicious-Ahoi-Ashtami-Rangoli-Designs-Video-Tutorials-330x220.png "Auspicious Ahoi Ashtami Rangoli Designs [Video Tutorials] 5")
A judicial commission into the matter has already been established, Uttar Pradesh told apex court
The counsel representing the Uttar Pradesh government submitted before the bench that a judicial commission into the matter has already been established. He further said that a petition has been filed before the High Court in this regard.
The bench, after hearing submissions, dismissed the PIL with the liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court.
A stampede broke out at Maha Kumbh on January 29
In a stampede that broke out in the Sangam area of Maha Kumbh in the morning of January 29, at least 30 persons lost their lives and several persons were injured.
Petitioner advocate Vishal Tiwari sought directions to all states to establish in proper manner their facilitation centres at the Maha Kumbh.
What did the petitioner say?
“All states shall establish in proper manner their facilitation centres at the Maha Kumbh. These centres shall provide and display the basic information regarding the safety measures and guidelines to the persons coming from their states. In emergency these centres shall be ready for any assistance,” the PIL said while seeking to prevent incidents of stampede and protect the fundamental rights of equality and life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner, while referring to earlier incidents, further said that the incident shows that there has been no change in the administrative practices that could have prevented such incidents.
