Karnataka Govt Faces Heat Over Bengaluru Stampede; HC Asks State to Furnish Status Report

The Karnataka High Court ordered the report to be shared with Karnataka State Cricket Association, Royal Challengers Bangalore, and DNA Entertainment Networks, believing it would aid the court's understanding and ensure fairness.

Bengaluru: In a big setback to the Siddaramaiah government, the Karnataka High Court refused to keep the state government's status report on the Bengaluru stampede in sealed covers, and asked it to be furnished. The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi noted that the report contains "facts as perceived" by the Government, adding that the necessity of a sealed cover does not arise.

“The case does not fall in the three categories— public interest, national security or privacy rights. Karnataka government should furnish the report along with translations to  Karnataka State Cricket Association, Royal Challengers Bengaluru and DNA Entertainment Networks Private Limited,” the court stated.

The state government wanted the status report be kept in sealed cover till they receive the Magisterial Inquiry and Judicial Commission reports. The state argued that sharing the report would influence the Magisterial Inquiry/Judicial Commission report. However, the court said that keeping the report secret must be justified only by reasons like national security, public interest, or privacy rights — not by arguments that sharing it might affect the Magisterial Inquiry or Judicial Commission.

The court said the argument has no merit because it doesn’t serve any public interest, and a retired High Court judge and an All India Service officer leading the inquiry are unlikely to be influenced by the status report from the government. “We initiated the suo moto case to know the reasons that led to this tragedy, and how it could have been prevented. 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. It shall also signify a fair chance being given to the parties to narrate what exactly happened from their perspective,” LiveLaw reported the court as saying.