A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe declined to entertain an application, repeatedly underlining that it would neither curtail free speech nor issue directions contrary to its earlier orders directing a court-monitored Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the tragedy.

Faced with the bench’s strong observations, senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for DMK Rajya Sabha member RS Bharathi, withdrew the application, with liberty to pursue any other remedy. “Mr. Ranjit Kumar seeks to withdraw this application to pursue such other remedy as may be available to the applicant. We dismiss the application as withdrawn as per the above terms,” the bench ordered.

The Karur stampede occurred on September 27 last year during a TVK rally attended by Vijay. The tragedy claimed 41 lives and left more than 100 injured.

Bharathi moved the application ahead of Vijay’s proposed July 10 meeting with families of the victims. The state government is expected to distribute compassionate appointment letters and announce other relief measures.

The application objected to public statements allegedly made by state minister Aadhav Arjuna, one of the accused in the case, claiming that the previous DMK government was responsible for the deaths and that “a score was to be settled.”

Kumar referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier order transferring the probe to the CBI and submitted that the accused were building a public narrative while the investigation remained pending. “There is a narrative being built by accused persons… they are making statements in the press,” Kumar told the bench.

The bench questioned the basis of the plea. When Kumar argued that the statements could influence witnesses, the court asked whether the petitioner wanted the Supreme Court to regulate the chief minister’s visit to the victims’ families and his public messaging. “You want the CM’s visit and messages to be regulated by the Supreme Court?” it asked.

As Kumar attempted to clarify that he was not seeking to curb free speech, Justice Viswanathan responded that the appropriate answer to political speech was more speech, not judicial censorship. “How does the Supreme Court get an impleadment of a political rival? …41 people…have died. …What is the sequitur? Just pause and think,” Justice Viswanathan observed.

The bench remarked that if any statement amounted to contempt of court, the petitioner was free to initiate appropriate proceedings separately. “You said you would file contempt. If the speech is contempt, you said you will file that,” the court noted.

Rejecting the plea for injunctive relief, the bench observed: “You want an injunction on free speech? You make your own speech. How does the Supreme Court, in a matter where the CBI has been appointed to enquire, give orders one after the other on a political rival’s statement?”

The bench was unconvinced by the argument that the proposed distribution of compassionate appointment letters could affect the investigation. “Orders of compassionate appointment have been handed over. How will it be a reflection on the investigation?”

Kumar sought to rely upon the minister’s speech and argued that Vijay was playing a “dual role” while being politically connected to the incident.

Justice Viswanathan pointed out that Vijay is not an accused. “The chief minister is not an accused in the FIRs registered…”

The court noted that while certain ministers were accused in the criminal case, that did not justify drawing the Supreme Court into a political contest. “The accused are some ministers. Not the chief minister.”

Kumar then requested that at least the court permit the issue to be brought to the notice of the three-member supervisory committee monitoring the CBI investigation. The bench declined to entertain the application, cautioning that its implications had perhaps not been fully considered.

“…you will be best advised not to press it here. This has implications which perhaps have not been thought through even at your end…we are inclined to dismiss it,” Justice Viswanathan said. Following these observations, Kumar agreed to withdraw the plea while reserving liberty to pursue other remedies, including bringing the issue before the supervisory committee.

The application was filed after the TVK formed the government in Tamil Nadu this year. The DMK contended that an “extraordinary situation” had arisen because several accused persons in the Karur stampede case had become ministers, creating a risk of influencing witnesses during the court-monitored CBI probe.

The plea said that although the party did not oppose compensation or compassionate appointments to the victims’ families, such measures should be undertaken only with safeguards directed by the Supreme Court and after consultation with the CBI to preserve the integrity of the investigation.

It cited a July 2 speech of Arjuna, who allegedly accused the previous DMK government of causing the deaths and declared that “a score” would be settled, contending that such public statements could prejudice the ongoing investigation.

Last year, while transferring the investigation to the CBI, the Supreme Court observed that the incident appeared, prima facie, to have resulted from failures on the part of the Tamil Nadu Police in crowd management and in granting permission for the rally. The court had noted that the political overtones surrounding the incident had eroded confidence in the state investigation, warranting an independent probe monitored by a three-member committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Ajay Rastogi.