Chinnaswamy stampede | Karnataka High Court directs state govt to submit inquiry panel's report in sealed cover

As per the media reports, the commission has recommended action against the officials of RCB, Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) and petitioner DNA, the event management company.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the state government to place in a sealed cover, the report of one man Commission of Enquiry headed by Justice John Michael Cunha on the June 4 stampede incident outside M Chinnaswamy stadium, which claimed 11 lives. A division bench headed by Justice Jayant Banerji passed this order after hearing the petition filed by DNA Entertainment Private Limited, Bengaluru, praying for quashing of the report.

The commission had submitted its report to the state government on July 11, 2025. The advocate for the petitioner 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 event management company. The counsel for the petitioner claimed that an application filed under the RTI, seeking a copy of the report, has been rejected.

The counsel contended that the terms of reference in the notification, constituting the commission of inquiry, nowhere empowered the commission to make recommendations for initiating action. He said 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. The advocate cited the Apex Court judgement in the LK Advani case, and said that a person to be prejudiced, in the inquiry, has to be effectively heard and the same was not extended to the petitioner.

On the other hand, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner is seeking for quashing of the Commission’s report, based on articles that appeared in the newspapers. He said that the commission report is not yet being placed before the legislative assembly.

At this stage, the division bench observed that it would like to see the report to peruse if compliance of section 8A and 8B of Commission of Inquiry Act have been done, since the petitioner is claiming that it was not afforded the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and also not provided with the copies of deposition.

“Arguments have been advanced at length. After hearing for some time, we deem it fit to direct that the report of the commission be placed for perusal under sealed cover. On the request of the Advocate General, list this matter on August 7,” the bench said.