RCB victory parade stampede case: Karnataka govt faces backlash from event organisers over blame

In the RCB victory parade stampede case, event organisers have hit back at the Karnataka government, claiming it is to blame for the chaos due to dual venue planning. The court has deferred further hearing to June 12.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka government, which earlier held the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCSPL), and DNA Entertainment Networks responsible for the tragic stampede outside Chinnaswamy Stadium during the RCB victory celebrations, is now facing legal challenges from the same entities.

Organisers file petitions, deny responsibility

Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCSPL) and DNA Entertainment have moved the court, seeking dismissal of the FIRs registered against them. Nikhil Sosale, Head of Marketing for RCB, along with DNA employees Sunil Mathew, Kiran Kumar, and Sumant, have filed interim applications for release from custody.

During the High Court hearing, RCB and KSCA accused the government of mismanagement and requested protection from coercive action.

Allegations against the government

The companies claimed:

• Their request for an open-bus parade on June 3 was denied by police.
• The government planned events at both Vidhana Soudha and Chinnaswamy Stadium after a meeting with the Chief Secretary.
• The crowd from Vidhana Soudha shifted to the stadium, resulting in overcrowding.
• Security at the stadium was inadequate compared to Vidhana Soudha.
• They had to hire 584 private security personnel.
• Despite opening the gates at 3:30 pm, the crowd remained dense.
• A police lathi charge triggered the stampede.
• They arranged 2,450 food packets for police, but only 600 were initially accepted due to low police presence; the rest were accepted later for dinner.

Government's response: Blames organisers

Advocate General K. Sashikiran Shetty refuted the claims, stating:

• RCB announced the event via social media without proper permissions.
• The deaths occurred due to negligence by RCB and DNA, not the government.
• Protection from arrest would hinder the ongoing investigation.

Petitioners question legal procedure

The petitioners' counsel argued:

• The FIR was filed at Cubbon Park Police Station, where the in-charge was suspended.
• Nikhil was arrested by the CCB, despite the case now being transferred to CID.
• The arrest violated due process as he received no prior notice.
• The CCB lacked authority to make the arrest.

They also questioned:

• The Chief Minister’s directive for arrests following a press conference.
• The dismissal of Govindaraju as political secretary to the CM.
• The suspension of five police officers and the transfer of Intelligence Head Hemant Nimbalkar. Why was no action taken against these individuals?

Court intervenes, halts arrests for now

The High Court referred to its previous order granting protection to KSCA officials and suggested similar treatment for RCSPL and DNA employees. Despite objections from the Advocate General, the court verbally instructed the government not to arrest company officials and adjourned the hearing to June 12.

Court directs cooperation; no arrests until next hearing

After hearing all arguments, the court instructed the accused to fully cooperate with the investigation and verbally directed the state government to refrain from making any arrests until further orders.