The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain an application filed by the General Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) that sought to restrain Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, Minister Aadhav Arjuna and other accused persons from making public statements in relation to the Karur stampede, which is currently under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe expressed disinclination to intervene in the matter, prompting the applicant to seek withdrawal of the plea.

The application was filed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s earlier order directing the CBI to take over the investigation into the stampede that occurred in Karur. It was moved urgently ahead of a scheduled meeting on July 10, 2026, during which the Chief Minister intended to distribute ex‑gratia compensation of Rs 10 lakh each and compassionate appointment orders to the families of the deceased and injured victims. The DMK contended that the Chief Minister’s proposed interaction with the victims’ families, coupled with public statements made by ministers, could create a reasonable apprehension of bias in the ongoing CBI probe.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the DMK Secretary, argued that the ministers were shaping a narrative about the case that ran contrary to the Supreme Court’s previous judgment transferring the investigation to the CBI. He submitted that the applicants were not opposing the disbursement of compensation but were concerned about the potential influence of political executives on material witnesses.

Justice Viswanathan questioned the scope of the relief sought, asking whether the petitioner wanted the Court to regulate the Chief Minister’s visit and fix his itinerary. He further inquired, “You want us to impose an injunction on speech? You counter their speech with your speech. How can a political rival implead themselves in a matter where the Supreme Court has transferred the matter to the CBI?” The judge also sought clarification on how the distribution of ex‑gratia amounts and compassionate appointment orders would affect the investigative process.

In response, Kumar clarified that the application aimed to restrain comments on the merits of the case and not to obstruct the compensation distribution. He asserted that the Chief Minister was both the head of the political executive and the first accused in the case. Justice Viswanathan corrected this assertion, stating on the record that the Chief Minister had not been named as an accused in the First Information Report (FIR) registered for the stampede. Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the respondents, echoed this position, confirming that Vijay does not appear as an accused in the FIR.

Observing that the bench was not inclined to entertain the matter, Justice Viswanathan advised Kumar to withdraw the application. The counsel then indicated that the applicant would be at liberty to pursue other remedies, including approaching the committee headed by Justice (retired) Ajay Rastogi, which the Supreme Court had constituted to monitor the CBI investigation. Kumar also mentioned that a separate application of contempt proceedings against Minister Aadhav Arjuna could be proceeded against for contempt over certain remarks he had made regarding the case.

The bench ultimately dismissed the application as withdrawn, granting the applicant liberty to avail any legal remedies available under the law. In its order, the Court noted, “Heard Mr Ranjit Kumar for applicant. He seeks to withdraw this appln. to pursue such other remedies as may be applicable to applicant. Dismissed as withdrawn on the above terms.”

The DMK’s plea had highlighted concerns that direct interaction between the victims’ families—who are also material witnesses in the CBI investigation—and persons connected with the investigation or the political executive could compromise the fairness of the probe. The application referenced prior distributions of ex‑gratia amounts made by the Chief Minister in October 2025, when criminal proceedings were pending, and argued that the proposed July 10 distribution, together with public statements by an accused minister, could create an apprehension of partiality.

By refusing to intervene, the Supreme Court underscored that the regulation of political speech and the monitoring of executive conduct in relation to an ongoing CBI investigation are matters best left to the designated oversight committee and the ordinary legal remedies available to the parties. The decision leaves the CBI free to continue its investigation without judicial restraint on the public statements of the Chief Minister or other ministers, while preserving the right of the DMK to seek alternative avenues of redress.