RCB Moves Karnataka High Court Against CAT Report on Stadium Stampede
Background: RCB Under Fire for Post-Win Chaos
The Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has approached the Karnataka High Court to challenge remarks made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that held the team prima facie responsible for the stampede outside the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru, which claimed 11 lives after the team’s IPL title victory on June 4, 2025.
CAT’s Observations and Findings
In a 29-page order, a CAT bench comprising Justice B.K. Shrivastava and Santosh Mehra ruled that RCB and its event management partner, DNA Entertainment, had not obtained any permission for organising the victory parade and celebrations after the team's historic maiden title win. CAT stated that RCB’s sudden social media announcements led to an uncontrollable crowd surge, reportedly drawing between 3 to 5 lakh people to a venue with a capacity of just 35,000.
According to CAT:
-
RCB “created a nuisance” by announcing the event abruptly.
-
The organisers submitted a letter on June 3 (before the final), stating a possible victory parade, but did not seek official police permission.
-
Despite sharing the parade route, no clearance was requested or granted.
-
The police received little time to manage the event logistics.
RCB's Stand: Denial of Natural Justice
In its petition to the High Court, RCB argued that:
-
The principles of natural justice were violated, as CAT made damaging observations without giving RCB a chance to be heard.
-
A fact-finding inquiry is still underway by the Bengaluru District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, making CAT’s conclusions premature.
-
As per the event management agreement, it was DNA Entertainment and KSCA who bore the responsibility of securing permissions from authorities.
-
The findings by CAT may influence public perception and could affect ongoing investigations, despite RCB not being a party in the original proceedings.
Social Media Announcements & Timeline of Events
CAT cited RCB’s social media posts from June 4:
-
At 7:01 AM, RCB announced the victory parade.
-
At 8:00 AM, a link was shared inviting fans, followed by another post at 8:55 AM with a message from Virat Kohli.
-
At 3:14 PM, the franchise confirmed a 5:00 PM parade followed by in-stadium celebrations.
Although RCB advised fans to follow police guidelines and declared the event was limited to free passes, CAT found no clear communication on how passes were being distributed, implying the event was “open to all.”
CAT’s Defence of the Police
CAT defended the police personnel, particularly Inspector General Vikash Kumar, who had been suspended post-stampede. The tribunal quashed his suspension, calling the disciplinary action unjustified, and noted that the lack of prior information made it impossible for law enforcement to manage such an overwhelming crowd.
In a scathing remark, the order said, “The police are not Bhagwan (God), nor do they possess Alladin ka Chirag (a magical lamp).”
Legal Status and Future Developments
While the CAT is a quasi-judicial tribunal focused on service matters involving public servants, its remarks have sparked public debate and could potentially influence narratives around the tragic event. However, the ongoing judicial inquiry by former High Court judge Michael da Cunha—constituted by the Karnataka Government—remains the primary probe body for determining accountability in the stampede.
RCB’s appeal seeks to expunge CAT’s remarks and clarify its role, asserting that legal conclusions were drawn prematurely in a case where the team was not even a party.
Conclusion: A Legal Showdown Beyond the Boundary
As one of IPL's most followed franchises, RCB now faces off-field scrutiny that could have long-lasting implications. While fans celebrated their long-awaited title win, the aftermath has become a grim reminder of the importance of coordination, public safety planning, and accountability.
This case will now be closely watched by both the legal fraternity and cricketing world alike—as it raises pressing questions on responsibility in mass public events, the role of franchises beyond the pitch, and the boundaries of legal due process in administrative rulings.
Comments
Post a Comment