Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The state government on Thursday placed before the Karnataka High Court a copy of the original report submitted by one-man Commission of Inquiry, headed by Justice John Michael Cunha regarding the June 4 stampede incident outside Chinnaswamy stadium.
A division bench headed by Justice Jayant Banerji had asked the state government to submit the copy of the report in a sealed cover during the hearing on the petition filed by DNA Entertainment Private Limited challenging the validity of the report.
During the hearing, the bench perused the report for some time and adjourned the hearing to Monday. The bench asked the counsel for the petitioner to obtain necessary instructions with regards to specific questions, including as to whether the representatives who deposed before the Commission of Inquiry have been duly authorised by the company.
The petitioner DNA had contended that the entire Inquiry would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the Commission of Inquiry Act since the commission neither provided the copies of the deposition of the petitioner and others nor an opportunity to cross-examine. Meanwhile, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty submitted that the persons who deposed before the Inquiry Commission and the person who sought for deposition copies are different. He further said that no other person, including the police officers and others, have raised such contentions.
The commission had submitted its report to the state government on July 11, 2025. The advocate for DNA Entertainment submitted that the excerpts of the inquiry report have appeared in the media. As per the media reports, the commission has recommended action against the officials of Royal Challengers Sports Pvt Ltd (RCSPL), Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) and petitioner DNA.
The petitioners said that they were not provided copies of witness depositions or relevant documents, despite requests to facilitate cross-examination and address inaccuracies. They assert this denial of opportunity itself renders the report invalid. According to the petitioners, the report was submitted in haste that indicated that the government's attempt was to absolve itself and redirect blame on innocent parties.