On October 13, the Supreme Court abruptly applied the brakes on a fledgling investigation of a Madras High Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) and a State-constituted Enquiry Commission headed by Justice (retired) Aruna Jagadeesan into the Karur stampede (on September 27, 41 people were killed during a stampede at a political rally hosted by actor-cum-politician Vijay in Karur district, Tamil Nadu).
Both the SIT and Justice Jagadeesan were directed to immediately hand over papers and evidence to the officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The top court’s decision to shift the Karur stampede investigation to the CBI was powered by two “sweeping” factors — the “political undertones” of the case and a perception that top-ranking Tamil Nadu Police officers made comments in a press conference to the extent that their subordinates were not at fault. The Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria concluded that the conduct of the State’s senior police officers “may create doubt in the minds of the citizenry about the impartiality and fairness of the investigation”, necessitating its transfer to the CBI.
The CBI is a central agency governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 which traces its origins to the Special Police Establishment (SPE) formed in 1941 to weed out corruption in war-time procurements. Once coined by the Supreme Court as a “caged parrot” of the Centre, the CBI is considered a premier investigative body which probes a wide range of crimes with inter-State and national ramifications.
However, the top court’s reasoning, entirely based on petitioners’ pleadings and “sweeping remarks” unaccompanied by prima facie evidence to show the SIT probe was riddled by bias, are simply not enough to shift a case to the CBI without the express consent of the State government. While it is well-settled that a constitutional court can order a CBI probe as judicial review is part of the Basic Structure, the court, be it the Supreme Court or a State High Court, must not direct a CBI enquiry in a “routine manner”. A judicial order of transfer of a probe to the CBI is only the ‘last resort’.
‘Measure of last resort’
The Supreme Court has a well-developed jurisprudence, evolved through judgments, which imposes significant self-restraint on the exercise of the extraordinary constitutional power to order a CBI probe under Article 32 (for the Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Court) of the Constitution. The top court has held that the exercise of inherent powers to direct the CBI to investigate must be exercised “sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations”. The court has consistently cautioned that a CBI investigation should not be directed “merely because a party casts certain aspersions or harbours a subjective lack of confidence in the State Police”.
“It goes without saying that for invoking this power, the court concerned must be satisfied that the material placed prima facie discloses commission of offences and necessitates a CBI investigation to ensure the fundamental right to a fair and impartial investigation, or where the complexity, scale, or national ramification of such allegations demands expertise of central agency,” the court has explained.
Judicial precedents have underscored that an order directing an investigation to be carried out by CBI should be treated as a “measure of last resort”, justified only when the constitutional court is convinced that the integrity of the process has been compromised or has reasons to believe that it may get compromised to a degree that shakes the conscience of courts or public faith in the justice delivery system.
Such circumstances compelling the judicial transfer of an investigation to the CBI from the State Police may typically arise when the materials placed on record before a court prima facie point towards systemic failure, the involvement of high-ranking State officials or politically influential persons, or when the local police’s conduct itself creates a reasonable doubt in the minds of the citizenry regarding their ability to conduct a neutral probe.
In the absence of these factors, constitutional courts must avoid placing unnecessary burdens on a specialised agency with “matters that do not satisfy the threshold of an exceptional case”.
The reason for the shift
The 25-page order of the Supreme Court shifting the Karur stampede probe to the CBI shows that the decision was largely made on the basis of “allegations” raised by the petitioners, who have been identified as relatives of victims and public-spirited persons.
The court noted that the tragedy which claimed 41 lives and left over a 100 injured at a rally organised by Vijay, founder of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), at Velusamypuram in Karur District had “stirred public sentiment and shook the conscience of people across the nation”. The court said that petitioners have made “allegations” that the ruling dispensation, which has “control over the immense machinery of the State”, did not discharge its functions “properly”. The Bench, in this context, referred to averment in the petitions that top police officers, held a press conference during which they “robustly” defended their colleagues, raising the apprehension that the probe by the SIT comprising Tamil Nadu Police officers would not be held fairly. It recorded submissions in the petitions that the police had denied permission earlier, in January, to another political party to conduct a rally at the same place where the tragedy occurred during the TVK event. The court voiced this vague notion to hint at “political undertones” at play.
These factors led to the court to prima facie conclude that there was “a doubt in the minds of the general public about the independence and impartiality of the investigation” and victims should be spared of being caught in the “political tussle between two sides”.
Previous judgments
A cursory read of the order shows that the decision to shift the probe to the CBI was entirely based on the allegations levelled by the petitioners. The Supreme Court judgment in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services UP has observed that the power of a court to shift an investigation to the CBI “can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings”.
Secondly, the Supreme Court did not specify a single instance of bias or delay by the Tamil Nadu Police’s SIT. In a Constitution Bench judgment in State of West Bengal versus Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the top court had held that the extraordinary power to transfer probes to CBI “cannot and should not be exercised in a routine manner without examining the complexities, nature of offence and sometimes the tardy progress in the investigations involving high officials of the State investigating agency itself”.
In an October 16, 2025 order authored by Justice Maheshwari himself in the case of Legislative Council UP versus Sushil Kumar, the judge noted that public order (Entry 1) and the police (Entry 2) was a State subject falling in List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. “It is a primary responsibility of the investigating agency of the State Police to investigate all offences which are committed within its jurisdiction. The investigations can be entrusted to the CBI only in exceptional circumstances,” Justice Maheshwari had written. In K.V. Rajendran versus Superintendent of Police, CBCID, the top court had held that a transfer of a case to CBI could only be justified by showing sufficient material to prove that the State investigation was dishonest or malafide.
Thirdly, ambiguous inferences about “political undertones”, “political tussles between two sides” and reported comments made by police officers in a press meet cannot be grounds for making incursions into a State’s power to investigate crimes within its own jurisdiction, especially when Tamil Nadu had withdrawn its general consent to CBI investigation in 2023. The Supreme Court has further constituted a committee headed by former top court judge, Justice Ajay Rastogi, to oversee the CBI probe. Such an arrangement does not have any statutory backing.
Besides, the SIT was formed separately by the Madras High Court in the Karur stampede case. The Justice Jagadeesan Commission of Enquiry was constituted on the very night of the tragedy. There had been no allegation of specific bias levelled against the SIT or the Enquiry Commission, warranting a change of the probe agency. The Madras High Court had also previously refused a specific demand for transfer to the CBI. In the Shree Shree Ram Janki Asthan Tapovan Mandir judgment, the top court had held that it was not for the judiciary to make sweeping remarks about the State government and its functionaries and subject them to CBI investigation merely based on allegations brought before it. The court said the judiciary has to understand that the “functioning in the government is by different officers and the working of the Executive has in-built checks and balances”.
Published – October 22, 2025 08:30 am IST
