The Supreme Court on Friday declined to issue sweeping directions on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a national framework to prevent stampedes during large public gatherings such as religious events, political rallies, and yatras. Instead, the Court directed the petitioner to take up the matter with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Election Commission of India (EC).
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi raised fundamental questions about the scope of judicial intervention in matters of law and order and crowd management.
“Can we issue such directions at all?” the Chief Justice asked during the hearing, underlining the practical limitations of imposing court-mandated guidelines for crowd control across the country.
The PIL, filed by Tumbalam Gooty Venkatesh, had sought a binding Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from the Centre for crowd management at public gatherings, particularly during elections and religious congregations. The petitioner also urged the formulation of a “national crowd management safety code” with provisions for real-time monitoring and updates.
The bench noted that the issues raised in the PIL were already the subject of a representation sent by the petitioner to the MHA on December 18, 2025, just days before the PIL was filed in court on December 21.
“The directions are sought for formulation of a policy for which the domain experts of law and order enforcing agencies are more suited,” the Court observed, adding that the petitioner may continue to pursue his representation before the appropriate authorities.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed to recent incidents like the stampede at Karur and a mishap at the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) event, claiming that 56 lives were lost due to inadequate crowd control measures. He argued that only the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) currently addresses such issues in a fragmented manner.
Citing judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s intervention in a PIL concerning the treatment of homeless mentally challenged individuals, the petitioner submitted that lives were at stake and court intervention was necessary.
He also recalled the Uphaar cinema fire tragedy, after which the need for stronger safety regulations and licensing norms was judicially emphasized.
The petitioner stressed that there is no legal definition of the term “stampede” and that his representations to the MHA had so far not received a response. However, the Court noted that barely three days had passed between the representation and the filing of the PIL.
“Authorities have to be given some breathing time,” the Chief Justice remarked, disposing of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter with the MHA and also furnish a copy of the representation to the EC.
In concluding the matter, the Court emphasized that crowd management falls within the domain of law enforcement and policy-making. It declined to frame or mandate guidelines on its own, reiterating that such decisions are best left to domain experts and competent authorities.
The petition was accordingly disposed of, with the Court declining to entertain the plea further at this stage.
