Court Rejects Sealed Cover Confidentiality in Bengaluru Stadium Stampede Case
In a significant move, the Karnataka High Court has ordered the state government to share the status report on the June 4 stampede at Bengaluru’s Chinnaswamy Stadium with key stakeholders — the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), and DNA Entertainment Networks.
The stampede occurred during RCB’s Indian Premier League (IPL) title celebration, which attracted thousands of fans outside the stadium, leading to chaos and injuries. The court, hearing a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) on the incident, made the order during a session on Monday.
A division bench led by Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi rejected the state government’s attempt to withhold the report, previously submitted in a sealed cover. The court clarified that confidentiality under sealed covers is reserved for cases involving national security, public interest, or individual privacy — none of which applied in this instance.
Status Report Disclosure Deemed Essential for Accountability
The court also dismissed the government’s claim that revealing the report could interfere with ongoing investigations by a judicial commission and a magistrate. It termed the concern as “speculative,” highlighting that experienced retired judges and All-India Service officers overseeing the probes would not be influenced by access to the report.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that making the report available to the KSCA, RCB, and DNA Entertainment Networks was necessary to help establish the facts, assign responsibility, and propose preventive measures for future events.
The bench stated that seeking cooperation from these parties while withholding critical information would be unfair and counterproductive. “If the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can help the court better understand the sequence of events, contributing factors, and whether the tragedy was avoidable,” the bench remarked.
The High Court’s directive underscores the importance of transparency in public safety matters and reinforces the judiciary’s stand on limiting the use of sealed covers, ensuring fair participation from all parties involved in the inquiry.
