SC Declines Omnibus Directions On Stampede Prevention

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to issue omnibus directions on a PIL seeking comprehensive measures to prevent stampedes at 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 allowed the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Election Commission.

At the outset, the Chief Justice raised fundamental questions about the scope of judicial intervention in issues related to crowd management and law and order.

The bench noted that the petition filed by Tumbalam Gooty Venkatesh sought directions to the Centre to frame and implement a binding standard operating procedure (SOP) for crowd management and safety at 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 raised, it observed, essentially concerned the responsibility of states and the Centre to maintain law and order during such public events and gatherings.

“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,” the bench ordered.

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

In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the apex court had intervened in policy matters in the past where vulnerable lives were at stake.

He referred to an earlier PIL concerning homeless persons with mental illness, in which the court had directed the formulation of an 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 Chief Justice asked.

The counsel also cited recent tragedies, including incidents at Karur and the RCB event, where 56 lives were reportedly lost, contending that only the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) was currently addressing such concerns in a fragmented manner.

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

Urging the bench to direct authorities to establish a minimum benchmark for crowd safety, the lawyer argued that there was no legal definition of the term “stampede” and that representations submitted to the MHA had received no response.

The bench noted that the representation was made on December 18 and that the petition was ready for filing before the top court on December 21.

Authorities needed to be given some “breathing time”, the Chief Justice said, as the court disposed of the PIL.