Bengaluru stampede: Police officers acted as 'servants of RCB', says Karnataka govt before HC
Bengaluru: The Karnataka government on Thursday justified the suspension of IPS officer Vikash Kumar Vikash before the High Court, arguing that the police officer and his colleagues acted as though they were "servants of RCB" during preparations for the IPL victory celebration, leading to a stampede that claimed 11 lives and injured 33 others.
Senior Counsel P S Rajagopal, appearing for the state, told the court that even before the final IPL match was played, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) had submitted a proposal to police officials regarding their victory celebrations.
Instead of seeking authorisation for such a large public gathering, the officers began making security arrangements without consulting their superiors or confirming the necessary permissions.
"The most obvious response from the IPS officer should have been: You haven't taken permission," Rajagopal said.
"Then, RCB would have had to approach the High Court, and the law would have taken its own course."
He asserted that this failure to act responsibly led to operational lapses and a serious dereliction of duty.
Arguing that making arrangements for a massive crowd in under 12 hours was impractical, Rajagopal questioned what proactive steps the suspended officer had taken during that time.
He cited Section 35 of the Karnataka State Police Act, which empowers police to take necessary action, and criticised the officers for not utilising that authority.
He added that no senior-level consultation had taken place, and that the officers were merely placed under interim suspension to prevent further damage.
When the Bench comprising Justices SG Pundit and TM Nadaf asked who oversaw security inside the stadium, Rajagopal replied it was state police personnel, admitting the security arrangements were clearly inadequate.
He also took issue with the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) reasoning for quashing the suspension, particularly its remarks sympathising with police limitations.
Reading from the CAT's order, Rajagopal criticised the Tribunal's observation that "police personnel are also human beings, not God or magicians," calling it an inappropriate narrative more suited for storytelling by grandparents.
"This is not what litigants expect from a judicial forum," he remarked.
Background of the case
The state's submissions came during its challenge to the CAT's July 1 order that had quashed the suspension of Vikash Kumar Vikash and directed his immediate reinstatement with full pay and allowances.
The Tribunal had concluded that there was no convincing evidence of negligence and observed that the police had very little time to react to RCB's sudden social media announcement of the celebration.
It noted that crowd control for an estimated three to five lakh people required significantly more time and preparation than was available.
Despite recognising that RCB's actions triggered the crowd build-up, the Tribunal held that the police could not be expected to perform miracles.
Following this, on July 2, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty informed the High Court that Vikash had resumed duties in uniform.
The Court, however, refused to stay the CAT order and listed the matter for a detailed hearing the following day.
On July 3, a division bench orally questioned whether suspension was necessary and suggested that a departmental shift might have sufficed. The AG insisted the suspension was well-supported by records and sought a stay of the CAT ruling.
Senior Counsel Dhyan Chinnappa, representing Vikash, assured the court that no contempt proceedings would be initiated. The Bench, in turn, advised against precipitative action until the matter is conclusively resolved.
Notably, Vikash is the only one among five suspended officers to challenge the decision before the Tribunal. The others include Bengaluru Police Commissioner B Dayananda, DCP Shekar H Tekkannavar, ACP C Balakrishna, and Inspector A K Girish.
Senior Counsel P S Rajagopal, appearing for the state, told the court that even before the final IPL match was played, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) had submitted a proposal to police officials regarding their victory celebrations.
Instead of seeking authorisation for such a large public gathering, the officers began making security arrangements without consulting their superiors or confirming the necessary permissions.
"The most obvious response from the IPS officer should have been: You haven't taken permission," Rajagopal said.
"Then, RCB would have had to approach the High Court, and the law would have taken its own course."
He asserted that this failure to act responsibly led to operational lapses and a serious dereliction of duty.
Arguing that making arrangements for a massive crowd in under 12 hours was impractical, Rajagopal questioned what proactive steps the suspended officer had taken during that time.
He cited Section 35 of the Karnataka State Police Act, which empowers police to take necessary action, and criticised the officers for not utilising that authority.
He added that no senior-level consultation had taken place, and that the officers were merely placed under interim suspension to prevent further damage.
When the Bench comprising Justices SG Pundit and TM Nadaf asked who oversaw security inside the stadium, Rajagopal replied it was state police personnel, admitting the security arrangements were clearly inadequate.
He also took issue with the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) reasoning for quashing the suspension, particularly its remarks sympathising with police limitations.
Reading from the CAT's order, Rajagopal criticised the Tribunal's observation that "police personnel are also human beings, not God or magicians," calling it an inappropriate narrative more suited for storytelling by grandparents.
"This is not what litigants expect from a judicial forum," he remarked.
Background of the case
The state's submissions came during its challenge to the CAT's July 1 order that had quashed the suspension of Vikash Kumar Vikash and directed his immediate reinstatement with full pay and allowances.
The Tribunal had concluded that there was no convincing evidence of negligence and observed that the police had very little time to react to RCB's sudden social media announcement of the celebration.
It noted that crowd control for an estimated three to five lakh people required significantly more time and preparation than was available.
Despite recognising that RCB's actions triggered the crowd build-up, the Tribunal held that the police could not be expected to perform miracles.
Following this, on July 2, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty informed the High Court that Vikash had resumed duties in uniform.
The Court, however, refused to stay the CAT order and listed the matter for a detailed hearing the following day.
On July 3, a division bench orally questioned whether suspension was necessary and suggested that a departmental shift might have sufficed. The AG insisted the suspension was well-supported by records and sought a stay of the CAT ruling.
Senior Counsel Dhyan Chinnappa, representing Vikash, assured the court that no contempt proceedings would be initiated. The Bench, in turn, advised against precipitative action until the matter is conclusively resolved.
Notably, Vikash is the only one among five suspended officers to challenge the decision before the Tribunal. The others include Bengaluru Police Commissioner B Dayananda, DCP Shekar H Tekkannavar, ACP C Balakrishna, and Inspector A K Girish.
Next Story