Bengaluru Stampede: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Share Status Report With RCB, Others; Says No To 'Sealed Cover'

The Karnataka High Court today refused to keep in 'sealed covers' the status report filed by State government in relation to the stampede near Chinnaswamy stadium involving IPL cricket team Royal Challengers Bengaluru.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi observed that what has been said in the status report are "facts as perceived" by the Government. It added that the case does not fall in the three categories— public interest, national security or privacy rights— where sealed cover can be adopted.It thus directed that the State to furnish the report along with translations to the respondents— Karnataka State Cricket Association, Royal Challengers Bengaluru and DNA Entertainment Networks Private Limited.Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty had sought the status report be kept in sealed cover for a limited period on the ground that the report must continue to be in the sealed cover till Magisterial Inquiry and Judicial Commission reports are received. It was claimed that the Government's view may be used by the Magisterial Inquiry/Judicial Commission and may get influenced by the views to form an opinion.Amicus curiae S.Susheela, had submitted that there had already been a deferral of many days, and questioned under what grounds the state had asked for these documents to be withheld from the public without any justifiable cause."Our justice delivery system does not approve the stance of the state to disclose documents after 10-15 days, it has to be transparent milords," it was submitted. "Information is available with lordships and not available with anyone else. The state has access to it; it is under these circumstances that the principle of proportionality, reasonableness and confidentiality vis a vis the public at large will have to be looked into," it was added.Referring to the Apex court judgment in the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India [(2023) 13 SCC 401], the court said “The doctrine of proportionality as enunciated stipulates the reasons to keep the report secret has to be juxtaposed with the plea of national security, public interest and privacy rights only and not the reasons as urged by Sri. Shetty and Sri. Holla that sealed cover, if shared, may influence the Magisterial Inquiry/Judicial Commission.” Further it said “Even on facts we find that those parameters are not met in as much, it is not a case of national security or privacy rights. Even public interest shall not come into play for more than one reason; firstly, no such plea is advanced; secondly, the ground to await the report of Magisterial Inquiry or Judicial Commission has no public interest angle.” Rejecting the contention of the state that the Magisterial Inquiry/Judicial Commission may get influenced by the stand/facts urged by the State in the status report. It said “It is unmerited in as much as such a plea has no public interest angle and surely a retired High Court Judge and an All India Service Officer who are heading the Judicial Commission/Magisterial Inquiry cannot be susceptible to influences emanating from the status report of respondent No.1.” Stating that these proceedings have been initiated suo motu by this Court to know the reasons led to the tragedy; whether it could have been prevented and what measures to be taken to prevent such tragedies in future. The finding on those issues has to be on factual foundation.The court observed “We are of the view that, if the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can assist the Court to understand the facts in a better perspective including the reasons which led to the incident and also it could have been prevented. It shall also signify a fair chance being given to the parties to narrate the happening of events on 04.06.2025 as per their perspective.” Finally it said “In any case, when replies/response of respondents No.2, 3 and 4 on the happening of events on 04.06.2025 has been shared with the counsel for the State, there is no reason, nor any justification not to share the status report as filed by the State. Otherwise, it would be unfair to the impleaded parties who shared their stand on the events that happened on 04.06.2025 but not the State.” Case title: SUO MOTU v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKACase No: WP 16530/2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bengaluru Stampede: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Share Status Report With RCB, Others; Says No To 'Sealed Cover'

Mustafa Plumber

Tags