The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Tuesday (July 1, 2025) quashed the suspension of Vikash Kumar Vikash, who was Additional Commissioner of Police (West) when a stampede at M. Chinnaswamy Stadium claimed 11 lives on June 4, and has challenged his suspension order.
It also directed the Karnataka government to reinstate him in the post he held. CAT said that the suspension order “has been passed in a mechanical manner and the order is not based upon any convincing materials. The police officers have been suspended without any sufficient material or grounds.”
CAT further said that it expects that the government “will give the same benefit to the other officers who were suspended by the same order”. Former city police commissioner B. Dayananda, former DCP (Central) H.T. Shekhar, former Cubbon Park ACP Balakrishna and former Cubbon Park inspector Girish are the other four officers suspended by the same order.
The order is seen as a setback for the State government as Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had personally announced the suspension of officers at a press conference. Sources in the government told The Hindu that the order will likely be challenged in the High Court of Karnataka.
Also read | Trampled over: On the RCB cup celebration and Bengaluru stampede
“Police are neither Gods nor magicians”
In the order passed by Justice B.K. Srivastava and Administrative Member Santosh Mehra, CAT – Bangalore Branch, citing lack of time to make arrangements, said the police were also human beings and neither “God or magician” having magical powers like “Alladdin ka Chirag” to make adequate arrangements in such short time.
“…The question arises whether “sufficient time” was available to the police for making the sufficient arrangements? The answer is negative,” CAT said in its order. “Because of a shortage of time on 04.06.2025, the police were unable to make the appropriate arrangements. Sufficient time was not given to the police….It cannot be expected from the police that within a short time of about 12 hours the police will make all arrangements,” it said.
“Prima facie RCB responsible for large gathering”
In its order, CAT finds that prior permission was not taken for the stadium event as per rules. Citing the letter given by Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) to Inspector, Cubbon Park on June 3 before the finals match, the Tribunal said the letter was in violation of Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Procession (Bengaluru City) Order, 2009, as per which permission needs to be taken seven days in advance from Additional Commissioner of Police in-charge of law and order, after making a security deposit. CAT found that none of these provisions were followed and the letter was not submitted to the Additional Commissioner, in this case Vikash Kumar Vikash, or the Commissioner.
“The KSCA submitted a letter which also did not contain any request for granting the permission or for making the arrangements. The letter shows only the information regarding the intention,” CAT said, adding: “Upon the basis of this letter, prima facie the police was not bound to give any facilities or to provide any support. In spite of that, the police provided the proper arrangements as far as possible”.
Detailing how RCB announced a victory parade repeatedly on June 4 on its social media handles, CAT observed that “prima facie it appears that the RCB is responsible for the gathering of about three to five lakh people”. “The RCB did not take the appropriate permission or consent from the police. Suddenly, they posted on social media platforms and as a result of aforesaid information, the public gathered,” it said, referring to it as “creating nuisance without any prior permission”, elsewhere in the order.
“No convincing materials for suspension”
Quoting from the terms of reference to the judicial inquiry commission formed by the state government to probe the stampede case on June 5, one of which reads: “Identification of persons responsible for lapses/deficiencies that led to the incident”, CAT said that this showed “that till June 5, it was not ascertained that who are responsible for the lapses and deficiencies. The same is also reflected from the order of magisterial inquiry”. “At the time of passing of the aforesaid order there was no convincing material for showing the default or negligence of the concerned police officers,” CAT said in its order.
Published – July 01, 2025 02:39 pm IST