NEW DELHI: In an important development, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked one of the family members of Karur stampede victim, S. Prabhakaran, to approach the CBI after he alleged that the Tamil Nadu Police officers and political secretaries are pressurising victims to withdraw their petitions from the apex court.
During the mention on Thursday, lawyer Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for Prabhakaran, submitted to the Bench headed by Justice J.K. Maheshwari that he was extremely apprehensive about the threats to his life
"The threats are issued by persons who are in a position of power and have resources (of the State) at their disposal," said the petition copy of Prabhakaran accessed by TNIE.
On hearing it, the apex court asked lawyer Srinivasan to move to the CBI, to which the Supreme Court had earlier transferred the investigation, and fixed the matter for further hearing to December 12.
The court in its order on Thursday, noted that it was contended that the petitioner had been threatened and cajoled by the officials of the State. However, in this regard, it is sufficient to say that the petitioner may apply to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
"Except to say the same, at present, no further orders are required to be passed on the interlocutory applications. List these interlocutory applications for hearing along with the writ petition on the computer-generated date, i.e., 12.12.2025," said the top court's order.
Prabhakaran, the petitioner who is the kin (brother) of victim(s) who tragically lost their lives in the stampede at the TVK party rally in Karur district on the evening of September 27, had sought the transfer of the investigation/inquiry of such stampede to the CBI for a fair, independent and impartial investigation.
It is submitted by Prabhakaran that threats were received via phone calls as well as through the visit of one M Raghunath, the Secretary of the ruling party of the State of Tamil Nadu, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), who offered illegal inducement of INR 20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lacs unly) and a job for withdrawing the instant writ petition.
"The tone and tenor of these ruling party members (s) was extremely threatening and menacing, in character. The plea further added that when the Court pronounced its order, armed policemen were posted outside the Petitioner's residence. The said armed police personnel (names and identity unknown at this stage), individually and collectively, issued threats to the Petitioner and offered illegal inducements with the (illegal) object that the present writ petition be withdrawn.
"There is a serious apprehension to believe that the same move, i.e. posting of armed personnel outside the Petitioner's residence, was replicated in the case of the other writ petitioners who have also approached this Court," the plea said.
The Petitioner has not approached the authorities for lodging his complaint as the applicant (Prabhakaran) believed that the persons issuing threats are acting on instructions and at behest of their higher or superior police officials. Therefore, in the event the applicant approaches them, for protection, he may be subject to ridicule, physical and mental harm.
Prabhakaran further submitted that irreparable injury and hardship would be caused to him if the present application is not allowed, and said no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the present application was allowed.
