Has RCB Challenged CAT's Responsibility for the Stampede?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
On July 9, the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) filed a petition against the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) ruling. The tribunal attributed the responsibility for a deadly stampede to RCB, suggesting they drew large crowds without proper permissions. This incident, which occurred on June 4, resulted in 11 tragic deaths, raising questions about liability and justice.
Key Takeaways
- RCB challenges CAT's ruling regarding the stampede
- Claims of exceeding jurisdiction by CAT
- Importance of obtaining police permission for events
- Ongoing investigations into the stampede
- Legal implications for sports franchises
Bengaluru, July 9 (NationPress) The Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has moved to the Karnataka High Court to contest the statements made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which deemed the cricket franchise accountable for attracting large crowds, allegedly triggering the tragic stampede on June 4 that claimed the lives of 11 individuals.
The owners of RCB, Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCSPL), submitted their petition on Wednesday.
The CAT issued these remarks while overturning the suspension of senior IPS officer Vikash Kumar Vikash, imposed by the Karnataka government in relation to the stampede incident.
The petition argues that the CAT's comments contradict natural justice principles and emphasize that RCB was not a party to the proceedings in question.
It further contends that the CAT exceeded its jurisdiction by assigning liability without allowing RCB to present its side.
The tribunal's remarks are claimed to be both factually and legally incorrect, made prior to the completion of pending investigations by various agencies, including a magisterial inquiry into the stampede case.
The Bengaluru bench of the CAT had previously annulled the Karnataka government's suspension of Vikash Kumar Vikash, an IPS officer of Inspector General rank, following the June 4 stampede that resulted in the deaths of 11 RCB supporters who had gathered to celebrate the team's IPL victory on July 1.
This ruling was delivered by the CAT tribunal, which included Justice B. K. Shrivastava and Santhosh Mehra.
The bench noted that RCB had shared posts on social media without obtaining necessary permissions from the local police.
They observed that the first post garnered 1.6 million views, the second 426,000 views, the third 760,000 views, and the fourth 1.7 million views.
Consequently, it appears that RCB may be responsible for attracting approximately 300,000 to 500,000 attendees.
The bench remarked, “The RCB did not secure the appropriate permissions or consent from the Police.”
In parallel, the bench has postponed the hearing regarding the Karnataka government's appeal against the CAT's decision to quash the suspension of Vikash Kumar Vikash until July 17.
Point of View
It's crucial to recognize that the RCB's challenge against the CAT's remarks highlights the delicate balance of responsibility in public events. The tragic loss of life during the stampede raises essential questions about crowd management and consent from authorities. It remains vital to uphold justice while ensuring that all parties involved are heard fairly.
NationPress
23/07/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is RCB challenging the CAT's ruling?
RCB is contesting the CAT's comments that blamed them for attracting large crowds leading to the stampede, arguing they were not party to the proceedings and that the remarks were made without due process.
What did the CAT say about RCB's social media posts?
The CAT noted that RCB posted on social media without police consent, leading to significant crowd gatherings, which they believe contributed to the stampede.
How many people died in the stampede?
The stampede on June 4 resulted in the tragic deaths of 11 individuals.
What is the status of the legal proceedings?
The Karnataka High Court will hear the RCB's petition against the CAT's ruling and the Karnataka government's appeal regarding the suspension of IPS officer Vikash Kumar Vikash on July 17.
What is the significance of this case?
This case raises critical issues about liability, public safety, and the responsibilities of sports franchises in managing large gatherings.
