The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in a plea by the DMK seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and his ministers from commenting on the ongoing CBI investigation into the Karur stampede case, emphasizing that the court should not enter the political arena by regulating the speech of elected officials. Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe questioned the court's authority to dictate a chief minister's public engagements or political speech, stating that such disputes should be countered with speech rather than judicial injunctions, and that the court should not become a political forum. The DMK's application, which alleged that public statements and the Chief Minister's planned meeting with victims' families could influence witnesses and undermine the CBI probe, was withdrawn by the party after the court indicated its reluctance to grant any restraint order, though they were granted liberty to pursue other legal remedies and indicated intent to approach a special committee and consider contempt proceedings against a minister.

The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in a plea by the DMK seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and his ministers from commenting on the ongoing CBI investigation into the Karur stampede case, emphasizing that the court should not enter the political arena by regulating the speech of elected officials. Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe questioned the court's authority to dictate a chief minister's public engagements or political speech, stating that such disputes should be countered with speech rather than judicial injunctions, and that the court should not become a political forum. The DMK's application, which alleged that public statements and the Chief Minister's planned meeting with victims' families could influence witnesses and undermine the CBI probe, was withdrawn by the party after the court indicated its reluctance to grant any restraint order, though they were granted liberty to pursue other legal remedies and indicated intent to approach a special committee and consider contempt proceedings against a minister.

The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in a plea by the DMK seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and his ministers from commenting on the ongoing CBI investigation into the Karur stampede case, emphasizing that the court should not enter the political arena by regulating the speech of elected officials. Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe questioned the court's authority to dictate a chief minister's public engagements or political speech, stating that such disputes should be countered with speech rather than judicial injunctions, and that the court should not become a political forum. The DMK's application, which alleged that public statements and the Chief Minister's planned meeting with victims' families could influence witnesses and undermine the CBI probe, was withdrawn by the party after the court indicated its reluctance to grant any restraint order, though they were granted liberty to pursue other legal remedies and indicated intent to approach a special committee and consider contempt proceedings against a minister.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that it would not step into the political arena by regulating what an elected chief minister can or cannot say about a pending criminal investigation, refusing to entertain a plea seeking to restrain Tamil Nadu CM C. Jospeh Vijay and his ministers from commenting on the Karur stampede case.

The observations came during the hearing of an application filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which alleged that public statements by the chief minister and his cabinet colleagues, as well as Vijay's proposed interaction with the families of those killed in the Karur stampede, could influence witnesses and undermine the ongoing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe.

A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe, however, was unconvinced. The judges repeatedly questioned whether the Supreme Court could dictate a chief minister's public engagements or restrain political speech merely because an investigation was underway.

“Do you want us to regulate the chief minister's meeting? Fix his itinerary?” Justice Viswanathan asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, who appeared for the DMK. When Kumar clarified that the party wanted only to prevent public comments on the case, the bench was equally emphatic.

“So you want us to impose an injunction on speech? You counter their speech with your speech,” Justice Viswanathan remarked, signalling the court's reluctance to become a referee in a political contest.

The application was filed in the pending proceedings relating to the Karur stampede, a case in which the Supreme Court had earlier transferred the investigation to the CBI to ensure an independent probe. The urgency stemmed from the Tamil Nadu government's decision to hold a public programme on July 10, where Vijay is expected to meet the families of the victims, distribute compensation of Rs 10 lakh each and hand over compassionate appointment orders.

The DMK argued that while it had no objection to compensation being paid, the families of the deceased were also key witnesses in the CBI investigation. Allowing the political executive to interact with them publicly, it contended, could create a perception of influence over the investigation. The application also cited statements allegedly made by Tamil Nadu minister Aadhav Arjuna, claiming that such comments had the potential to prejudice the investigation.

But the bench was not persuaded that the proposed relief was legally sustainable. 

At one stage, Kumar submitted that Vijay was the “first accused” in the matter. Justice Viswanathan immediately corrected him.

“The chief minister is not an accused in the FIRs registered,” the judge observed, adding that it would be inappropriate to convert the Supreme Court into “a political forum” over disputes arising out of public statements. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the respondents, also pointed out that Vijay had not been named as an accused in the criminal case.

With the court indicating that it was not inclined to grant any restraint order, the DMK chose to withdraw its application. The bench dismissed the plea as withdrawn while granting liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law.

The party informed the court that it intended to approach the committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi, constituted in connection with the investigation, and would also consider initiating separate contempt proceedings against Minister Aadhav Arjuna over his public remarks.

The order means that the chief minister's scheduled meeting with the victims' families can go ahead as planned, while the CBI investigation continues independently.

TAGS