'CM Vijay Not Accused In Karur Stampede FIR'' : Supreme Court Refuses DMK's Plea To Restrain TN Minister's Comments On Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain an application filed by the General Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, TN Minister Aadhav Arjuna and other accused persons from making public statements in relation to the Karur Stampede, which is being investigated by the CBI, and to regulate their interaction with victims' families during the pendency of the probe.

As the partial Court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, the applicant sought to withdraw it. Dismissing the application as withdrawn, the bench granted liberty to the applicant to pursue other remedies available under the law.

The application, filed in the case where the Supreme Court last year ordered CBI investigation regarding the Karur stampede, was urgently moved ahead of the proposed meeting of Chief Minister Vijay with the families of the stampede victims on July 10 to distribute the ex-gratia compensation and compassionate appointment orders for them.

In today's hearing, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the DMK Secretary, submitted that the TVM Ministers were making public statements which were creating a "narrative" regarding the stampede case. He conteded that this was in violation of the last year's judgment where the Supreme Court transferred the investigation to the CBI.

Justice Viswanathan then asked, "You want the Chief Minister's visit to be regulated by the Supreme Court and fix his itinerary?"

Kumar then clarified that the applicant was seeking to restrain comments by the Chief Minister and other Ministers regarding the merits of the case, and was not opposed to compensation being given to the victims.

Justice Viswanathan at this juncture asked, "So you want us to impose an injunction on free speech? You counter their speech with your speech. How does the Supreme Court, in a matter where it ordered the CBI investigation, allow the impleadment of a political rival and pass one order after the other?"

Justice Viswanathan then asked how the distribution of Rs 10 lakh ex gratia compensation and orders of compassionate appointment for the family members of the stampede victims will affect the investigation. The Judge wondered if the application was "well-thought of". 

Kumar then stated that Vijay was having a "dual role" - as the head of the executive and as an accused number one in the case.

Justice Viswanathan then corrected Kumar, saying that Vijay has not been named as an accused in the FIR. "Who is the accused number 1? Even your application and your FIR registered by the previous government don't refer to the Chief Minister as an accused. Please check up with your facts. I may be wrong."

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the respondents, then affirmed that Vijay is not an accused in the case. Justice Viswanathan then told the DMK's counsel, "The accused are some who are the ministers, Mr.Ranjit Kumar. Not the Chief Minister." The judge asked how the Court can be made a forum for political battle.

Justice Viswanathan, saying that the bench was not inclined to entertain the matter, advised Kumar to withdraw the application.

Kumar then said that the applicant be given the option to raise the matter before the committee headed by Justice (retired) Ajay Rastogi, which the Supreme Court has constituted to monitor the investigation. Kumar also submitted that a separate application was sought to be filed to initiate contempt proceedings against TN Minister Aadhav Arjuna over some comments made by him regarding the case.

The bench dismissed the application with liberty to the applicant to avail such remedies as may be available under the law.

"Heard Mr Ranjith Kumar for applicant. He seeks to withdraw this appln. to pursue such other remedies as may be applicable to applicant. Dismissed as withdrawn on the above terms," the bench observed in the order.

Details of the application

While clarifying that it has no objection to the State extending ex gratia assistance or welfare measures, the DMK leader argued that the victims' families are also material witnesses in the CBI investigation. The application contended that direct interaction with such witnesses by persons connected with the subject matter of the investigation or by members of the political executive could create a reasonable apprehension regarding the fairness of the probe.

The application also pointed out that Vijay had earlier distributed Rs.20 lakhs each to the families of the deceased and Rs.2 lakhs each to injured victims in October 2025, when the criminal proceedings were pending. It argued that, taken together with the proposed distribution of government benefits after assuming office and the public statements made by an accused Minister, these developments warranted judicial safeguards to preserve the integrity of the investigation.

Another grievance raised in the application concerned a public statement allegedly made on July 2, 2026 by Tamil Nadu Minister Aadhav Arjuna, who is also an accused in the case. Referring to the Minister's remarks that there was "a score to settle" over the Karur incident and his allegation that the previous DMK government had "killed Karur people through the police," Bharathi argued that such statements were intended to influence the ongoing Court-monitored investigation.

The application alleged that an accused holding public office "cannot set a narrative especially when the investigation is going on," and that the speech was calculated to prejudice the investigation and create a public perception regarding responsibility for the incident. It further stated that a separate contempt petition was being proposed against the Minister.

Among the reliefs sought, Bharathi prayed for directions restraining CM Vijay, Aadhav Arjuna, Bussy Anand, C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar and other accused persons from making public statements attributing criminal liability or commenting on the merits of the pending investigation.

The application also sought a direction that government benefits to victims' families be disbursed only in accordance with safeguards approved by the Supreme Court and after placing the proposed course of action before the CBI, so that the evidence of material witnesses is not affected.

Additionally, Bharathi sought a direction to the CBI to initiate proceedings against Aadhav Arjuna over his July 2 statement, alleging that it amounts to influencing witnesses and impeding the ongoing investigation.

Case Title: TAMILAGA VETTRI KAZHAGAM Versus P.H. DINESH AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 16539/2025