TVK tells Supreme Court ‘pre-planned conspiracy’ cannot be ruled out

Supreme Court Justices JK Maheshwari and NV Anjaria will hear on Friday, October 10, 2025, a petition filed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) to appoint a former high court judge to oversee the investigation into the Karur stampede that killed 41 people.

TVK called that “a pre-planned conspiracy by some ill-intentioned individuals to cause trouble in the rally area cannot be ignored.”

The petition challenges the observations made by the Madras High Court. suo motu Including that the TVK leadership led by President Joseph Vijay escaped the tragedy.

The petition pointed out that the Supreme Court contradicted itself when it first expressed doubts about the “independence” of the Tamil Nadu Police investigation and handed over the investigation to the Special Investigation Team comprising State Police personnel.

TVK said its management “did not escape” the stampede but followed the instructions of the district police.

“There was no intention to escape or give up the situation in any way. The aim was only to immediately restore a calm atmosphere and ensure the rapid dispersal of the crowd,” the special leave petition said.

While TVK left the scene in the interest of public order, he said neither Mr. Vijay nor other senior party leaders were aware of the tragic loss of life that had occurred.”

The petition claimed that the police had leveled lathi charges against some party cadres who were still in the area.

“The excessive force used by the police led to the forcible dispersal of the crowd, restricting party cadre from remaining in the area and continuing to assist the affected persons,” TVK said. he said.

The party’s petitioner said the medical team bravely remained to attend to the injured and take them to waiting ambulances.

The party had acted only “in a manner consistent with its obligations to public safety and law enforcement.”

The petition also objected to the Supreme Court’s observations that TVK leaders had “no statement, no statement of responsibility regarding the incident”.

The party said that “Mr.