<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by DNA Entertainment Limited, an event management company, challenging the one-man commission of inquiry report pertaining to the June 4, 2025, M Chinnaswamy stadium stampede case, on the specific stand of the state government that no action would be taken without an opportunity of being heard. A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and Tara Vitasta Ganju further noted that the report cannot be set aside on mere apprehensions and assumptions.</p><p>The stampede was during the RCB victory celebrations in which 11 people had died and more than 50 were injured. The state government had appointed a one-member enquiry commission headed by Justice John Michael Cunha, retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act on June 5, 2025. The commission filed its report on July 10.</p>.Sisters and daughters of accident victim entitled for compensation: Karnataka HC.<p>The DNA argued that the entire inquiry was contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Commissions of Inquiry Act since it was neither provided with the copies of the deposition nor an opportunity to cross-examine. On the other hand, Advocate General Shasikiran Shetty argued that the Commission was only a fact-finding body and that the right of 'reasonable opportunity' of being heard would come into play only when the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person or is of the opinion that the reputation of any person would likely get prejudicially affected by the inquiry.</p><p>The division bench noted that DNA never demanded the depositions of the witnesses or opportunity to cross examine the witnesses already examined before July 4, 2025. The court further noted that the company, as an afterthought attempt, filed the memo on July 4, before the Commission, demanding depositions of all the witnesses and opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, knowing fully that the term of the commission would end on July 10 and it were to submit the report on or before July 10.</p><p>“We are of the considered view that the report dated 10.07.2025 cannot be set aside on mere apprehensions and assumptions. In a similar situation and relying on a similar undertaking by the State of Goa, the Supreme Court in GOA FOUNDATION cited (supra) refused to quash the report of Justice Shah Commission,” the division bench said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by DNA Entertainment Limited, an event management company, challenging the one-man commission of inquiry report pertaining to the June 4, 2025, M Chinnaswamy stadium stampede case, on the specific stand of the state government that no action would be taken without an opportunity of being heard. A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and Tara Vitasta Ganju further noted that the report cannot be set aside on mere apprehensions and assumptions.</p><p>The stampede was during the RCB victory celebrations in which 11 people had died and more than 50 were injured. The state government had appointed a one-member enquiry commission headed by Justice John Michael Cunha, retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act on June 5, 2025. The commission filed its report on July 10.</p>.Sisters and daughters of accident victim entitled for compensation: Karnataka HC.<p>The DNA argued that the entire inquiry was contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Commissions of Inquiry Act since it was neither provided with the copies of the deposition nor an opportunity to cross-examine. On the other hand, Advocate General Shasikiran Shetty argued that the Commission was only a fact-finding body and that the right of 'reasonable opportunity' of being heard would come into play only when the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person or is of the opinion that the reputation of any person would likely get prejudicially affected by the inquiry.</p><p>The division bench noted that DNA never demanded the depositions of the witnesses or opportunity to cross examine the witnesses already examined before July 4, 2025. The court further noted that the company, as an afterthought attempt, filed the memo on July 4, before the Commission, demanding depositions of all the witnesses and opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, knowing fully that the term of the commission would end on July 10 and it were to submit the report on or before July 10.</p><p>“We are of the considered view that the report dated 10.07.2025 cannot be set aside on mere apprehensions and assumptions. In a similar situation and relying on a similar undertaking by the State of Goa, the Supreme Court in GOA FOUNDATION cited (supra) refused to quash the report of Justice Shah Commission,” the division bench said.</p>