TN to SC: Reconsider Karur Probe Transfer to CBI, Ensure Fair Investigation

Image Source: Internet

The Tamil Nadu government has accused the Supreme Court of undermining the state's authority by transferring the investigation into the Karur stampede to the CBI without giving it a chance to present its case. In an affidavit filed ahead of a December 12 hearing, the state government argued that the transfer order breached principles of natural justice and non-discrimination. The state claimed that it was denied a fair opportunity to present crucial evidence, including safety permissions and crowd-control assessments, which could have shed light on the cause of the stampede that killed 41 people and injured over 100. The incident occurred during a public outreach event of actor Joseph Vijay's newly-launched political party in Karur on September 28. The Tamil Nadu government emphasized that the petition filed by Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) leaders did not seek a CBI probe or challenge the constitution of the special investigation team (SIT) formed by the Madras High Court. Instead, the petition requested a committee headed by a retired judge to monitor the investigation. The state also raised concerns about the composition of the supervisory committee, which includes two IPS officers from the Tamil Nadu cadre who are "non-native" to the state. The state argued that this distinction is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14 and 15. The government further claimed that the transfer of the investigation to the CBI would hinder an independent and fair probe, as several layers would be involved in the investigation and collection of evidence. The state also flagged a private meeting between TVK founder Vijay and the families of victims as a cause for concern, which could potentially influence witnesses during the probe. The Tamil Nadu government urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its order and allow the probe to continue under the SIT, which was formed to ensure transparency and accountability. The state argued that the investigation was at a nascent stage when the transfer was ordered, and there was no evidence of bias or mala fides to justify the transfer.