Vijay’s Govt Decision To Give Jobs to Stampede Victims Struck Down: Why Madras HC Could Not Make Exception

The Madras High Court on Monday invalidated the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to offer public employment to families of those killed in the Karur stampede, ruling that humanitarian considerations could not displace constitutional rules governing recruitment.

A Division Bench of Justices C V Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel held that the appointments violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which protect equality before the law and equal access to government employment.

Forty-one people, including children, died in the stampede at a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam rally addressed by Vijay in September 2025. Earlier this month, the Vijay-led government had handed appointment orders to 32 legal heirs as part of its relief and rehabilitation measures.

What Did Tamil Nadu Government Decide?

The newly elected TVK government issued an order offering government jobs to the legal heirs of the Karur stampede victims. It argued that the families had lost their breadwinners in an exceptional tragedy and required more lasting support than one-time financial compensation.

Advocate General Vijay Narayan defended the decision as a conscious humanitarian policy adopted under the state’s executive powers. He told the court that the victims formed a separate class because they had suffered losses while attending a public event through no fault of their own.

Less than three weeks before its final ruling, the court had allowed the government to distribute appointment orders. However, it made clear that the jobs would be temporary and subject to the outcome of the legal challenge.

The petition was filed by Madurai lawyer Theeran Thirumurugan, who argued that the government had created a special category of beneficiaries without any statutory backing.

What Do Articles 14 And 16 Say?

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 16 applies that principle specifically to public employment by ensuring equal opportunity for citizens seeking government jobs.

The court said public posts could not be allocated outside a transparent recruitment framework merely because the executive considered a particular case deserving of sympathy.

“There are many who wait seeking employment,” the Bench observed, adding that public jobs “are not to be thrown away by the state”.

The judges noted that thousands of aspirants spend years preparing for recruitment examinations and waiting for vacancies. Creating jobs for one group without a legally recognised basis would therefore disadvantage others who were entitled to compete under the established process.

Why Did Court Reject Government’s Article 162 Argument?

The government relied on Article 162, which gives a state executive authority over matters on which the state legislature can make laws.

The Bench, however, said this power was not unrestricted. Executive decisions must remain within the boundaries laid down by the Constitution and cannot be used to sidestep Articles 14 and 16.

“If executive action were to be left unfettered and given free hand, chaos will reign,” the court observed.

The judges also rejected the argument that the Karur victims could automatically be treated as a distinct class. They distinguished the incident from cases such as the Thoothukudi police firing, where jobs were offered because the deaths arose from alleged excesses directly attributable to the state.

According to the Bench, no comparable circumstance existed in the Karur case to justify an exception to ordinary recruitment rules.

How Is Compassionate Appointment Different From These Jobs?

Compassionate appointments are generally provided to dependants of government employees who die while in service, with the objective of helping families facing sudden financial hardship.

Such appointments are governed by departmental rules, eligibility conditions and waiting lists. They are exceptions to regular recruitment, but operate within an established administrative framework.

The court said the Karur appointments fell outside this system. Extending the same benefit to stampede victims would also overlook families already waiting for jobs under recognised compassionate appointment schemes.

The Bench suggested that the government could instead fund professional education, technical training, entrepreneurship or skill-development programmes for the affected families.

“The government would be creating leaders, entrepreneurs, self-sufficient individuals,” it observed.

Why Did The Court Warn Of A Precedent For Future Tragedies?

The judges warned that permitting these appointments could open the “floodgates” for similar claims after every major tragedy.

Families affected by industrial accidents, fireworks explosions, road crashes or other disasters could demand government jobs on the same grounds, particularly where compensation had already been paid.

The court said each tragedy could not become the basis for creating a new route into public service. Doing so would make recruitment dependent on executive discretion rather than uniform constitutional standards.

While acknowledging that the beneficiaries had not been separately heard, the Bench noted that its interim order had expressly warned them that the appointments were provisional and could be cancelled after judicial review.