Supreme Court refuses to issue omnibus directions on stampede prevention

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to issue omnibus directions on a PIL seeking comprehensive directions to prevent stampedes during large public gatherings, including religious events, political rallies and yatras.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi permitted the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Election Commission.

At the outset, the CJI raised fundamental questions about the scope of judicial intervention in matters involving crowd management and law and order.

The bench noted that the petition filed by Tumbalam Gooty Venkatesh sought a direction to the Centre to frame and implement a binding standard operating procedure (SOP) for crowd management and safety for large public gatherings.

“Similar directions have been sought to implement SOP in political rallies across the country during the model code of conduct. The petitioner has also sought formulation for national crowd management safety code with real time updates,” the bench said, adding, “We find the issues were raised by the petitioner in representation on December 18, 2025.” The issue sought to be raised revolves around the responsibility of states and the Centre to maintain law and order in such public events and gatherings, it noted.

“The directions are thus sought for formulation of a policy for which the domain experts of law and order enforcing agencies are more suited. Since petitioner has already approached the MHA, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the plea at this stage to enable the petitioner to pursue representation before Union of India and that he may also furnish a copy of this representation to the Election Commission as well …We leave it for the competent authority to consider the representation if they deem it appropriate,” it ordered.

During the hearing, the bench asked, “Can we issue such directions at all?” and expressed reservations about the feasibility of court-mandated, all-encompassing guidelines for crowd control.

Responding to the query, the counsel for the petitioner said the top court previously intervened in policy matters where vulnerable lives were at stake.

He cited an earlier PIL concerning homeless mentally challenged persons, where the Court had directed the formulation of SOP.

“Suppose some people want to exercise their fundamental right and do a dharna in Delhi. We can regulate it so that there is no problem for anybody, and at the same time protect free speech. But to say that a rally has to happen in Chennai, the ground can have 10,000 people but 50,000 turn up, then what do we do,” the CJI asked.

The petitioner’s counsel referred to recent tragedies, including incidents at Karur and the RCB event, where 56 lives were reportedly lost, arguing that only the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) was currently addressing such issues in a fragmented manner.

He also drew attention to past judicial observations following the Uphaar cinema tragedy, which had highlighted the need for stricter safety norms and licensing requirements.

The lawyer urged the bench to direct the authorities to establish a minimum benchmark for crowd safety, contending that there was no legal definition of the term “stampede” and that representations sent to the MHA had elicited no response.

The bench said the representation was given on December 18 and the petition for filing in the top court was ready on December 21.

The authorities have to be given some “breathing time”, the CJI said and disposed of the PIL.