MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Tuesday, 07 July 2026

‘How can court regulate CM's visit’: SC dismisses DMK plea against Vijay's visit to families of Karur stampede victims

Justice Viswanathan points out that Tamil Nadu chief minister Vijay is not an accused. 'The chief minister is not an accused in the FIRs registered…'

Our Web Desk, PTI Published 07.07.26, 12:40 PM
TVK chief and actor Vijay leaves from CBI headquarters after the second round of questioning in connection with the Karur stampede case, in New Delhi, Monday, Jan. 19, 2026.

TVK chief and actor Vijay leaves from CBI headquarters after the second round of questioning in connection with the Karur stampede case, in New Delhi, Monday, Jan. 19, 2026. PTI file picture

The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the DMK for questioning Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay's scheduled meeting with the families of the Karur stampede victims, and refused to entertain its plea alleging that state ministers were influencing witnesses in the case.

A partial working day bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe asked the DMK as to how can the court regulate the visit of the executive head.

ADVERTISEMENT

The bench asked the DMK, represented by senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, how does visiting stampede victims amount to influencing witnesses.

Vijay is scheduled to meet the families of the stampede victims on July 10.

The bench was unconvinced by the argument that the proposed distribution of compassionate appointment letters could affect the investigation. “Orders of compassionate appointment have been handed over. How will it be a reflection on the investigation?”

Kumar sought to rely upon the minister’s speech and argued that Vijay was playing a “dual role” while being politically connected to the incident.

Justice Viswanathan pointed out that Vijay is not an accused. “The chief minister is not an accused in the FIRs registered…”

The court noted that while certain ministers were accused in the criminal case, that did not justify drawing the Supreme Court into a political contest. “The accused are some ministers. Not the chief minister.”

Kumar then requested that at least the court permit the issue to be brought to the notice of the three-member supervisory committee monitoring the CBI investigation. The bench declined to entertain the application, cautioning that its implications had perhaps not been fully considered.

The court told Kumar that the DMK may wish to withdraw its plea and avail any other remedy under law or else the court will dismiss it.

“...you will be best advised not to press it here. This has implications which perhaps have not been thought through even at your end…we are inclined to dismiss it,” Justice Viswanathan said. Following these observations, Kumar agreed to withdraw the plea while reserving liberty to pursue other remedies, including bringing the issue before the supervisory committee.

The top court dismissed the plea as withdrawn.

DMK secretary RS Bharati had filed the plea seeking to restrain the Tamil Nadu chief minister, state minister Aadhav Arjuna and other accused people from making public statements on the case and to regulate their interaction with victims' families during the pendency of the CBI probe.

The plea referred to reports that the chief minister is scheduled to visit Karur to distribute government orders, compassionate appointments and other benefits to the families of the deceased and injured victims.

Bharathi, who has sought impleadment in a pending case, submitted that several people initially chargesheeted in the case were now ministers in the Tamil Nadu Cabinet following the 2026 assembly elections.

On October 13 last year, the top court ordered a CBI probe into the stampede in which 41 people were killed, saying the incident had shaken the national conscience and deserved a fair and impartial investigation.

On October 13 last year, the top court ordered a CBI probe into the stampede in which 41 people were killed, saying the incident had shaken the national conscience and deserved a fair and impartial investigation.

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT