Author: Abinaya Raja, Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudupakkam
To the point
On the evening of June 4, 2025, what began as a joyful celebration of Royal Challengers Bangalore’s Indian Premier League 2025 victory at Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore tragically escalated into a fatal stampede, claiming the lives of 11 individuals and leaving 33 others injured.There are numerous reasons for this horror incident, the main issue was limited availability of police force to control the crowd. 3 FIRs have been filed in Karnataka regarding this incident.The Karnataka High Court independently recognized the seriousness of the incident and commenced legal proceedings on its own initiative.This Article aims to dive deep into this atrocious stampede and its legal counter accusations. Substantially this article speaks about laws attracted to stampede, precedents and on whom the liability for this incident falls upon.
Use of legal Jargon
The Bangalore stampede attracts numerous legal provisions similar as Causing death by negligence under Section 106 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,Section 100 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pertains to culpable homicide that does not qualify as murder.In this matter there is Res Ipsa Loquitur( the thing speaks for itself) which means the nature of the offence strongly indicates negligence also there is vicarious liability of the state due to its failure of public duty. In this case the principle of “ Volenti Non Fit Injuria” had been rejected by the Karnataka HC. The Karnataka High Court considering the seriousness of the offence took an suo motu cognizance.
There were 3 FIRs( First Information Report) filed in the Cubbon Park Police Station in the Bangalore City. Nikhil Sosale, the Marketing Head of RCB, was arrested in connection with the FIR, and the Karnataka High Court refused to grant him interim relief. This incident had violated the right to life( Article 21) of people which is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court investigates this matter considering the Doctrine of Reasonable Care. The Compensation for the Stampede victim’s family were fixed at 25 Lakhs by the Karnataka State Government. It was contended in court that there was no mens rea (criminal intent) involved in the incident.
The Proof
In the present case, the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur becomes applicable, wherein the incident itself makes it a prima facie negligence. The lack of proper operation, failure to anticipate the public turnout, attainability of emergency exit and medical installations and limited deployment of police force were considered as the reasons for this tragic incident. There are 3 FIRs that were registered on account of this event by Karnataka Police. In action for the FIR the police arrested the Marketing head of RCB and was arrested on 6th June, 2025.
The families of 11 persons who were dead in the stampede were given the compensation of 25 Lakhs Rupees by the State Government. The Karnataka Police prior to the event had informed the Government regarding the complications of this event and suggested that it be conducted in the morning. The advocate representing the State in the Karnataka High Court presented that the RCB management had not obtained authorization from the government, it simply informed them about the victory parade.
The State directly attributed liability to the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Without any proper ticket management, RCB invited the whole world for the celebrations through social media. The capacity of the Chinnaswamy Stadium is only 33,000 but there was a crowd of 3.5 to 4 lakh people gathered in the Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore. This deadly stampede highlights the absence of proper legislation on crowd management or stampede safety in India.
Abstract
The atrocious stampede event that happened at Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore had resulted in the death of 11 people and injured further than 30 persons. The main idea of this Article is to examine the provisions of criminal law that applies to this incident, judicial precedents, tortious liability. This Article explores criminal negligence, failure of public duty, culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The study concludes the critical need of preventative legal and administrative measures to avoid further deadly events in our country in the future.
Case Laws
1. Kamala Theatre v. Kasireddy Varalakshmi( 2001)
- In the case of Kamala Theatre v. Kasireddy Varalakshmi, the Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed the issue where the complainant’s 15 years old son named Chittibabu was dead in an attempt to get a ticket in the defendant’s theatre due to the stampede that passed in the line. It was stated that the incident occurred due to negligence on the part of the theatre management. In an action brought by the complainant the court held that the theatre management is liable for the damage incurred to the complainant and they should pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000. From this case, it is clear that the management could be made liable for the damage caused due to its negligence.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa( 1993)
- The Supreme Court of India handled the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, which involved the custodial death of the complainant’s son.The Supreme Court of India held that the State can not escape its liability when public safety is compromised. In the event of the Bangalore stampede incident the state failed to comply with its duty to protect the right to life of people.
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966):
- This case involved the death of three individuals due to the collapse of a clock tower under the maintenance of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The legal heirs of the deceased filed suits seeking compensation. The court invoked the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, meaning “the thing speaks for itself,” which implies that the very occurrence of the accident was sufficient to presume negligence, without the need for specific evidence. Similarly, in the stampede case, the loss of 11 lives was deemed enough to infer negligence on the part of the RCB management.
4. Rahul Jain v. Union of India( 2014)
- This case was filed regarding the Ratangarh Temple stampede in Maharashtra.In this case, the Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines for effective crowd management, stressing the importance of detailed planning by the concerned authorities and the deployment of adequate public officials to control and manage large gatherings.These guidelines of the Supreme Court of India were not followed in the RCB Unbox Event, that is why this atrocious stampede has passed.
5. Suo moto Public Interest Action( PIL) on Kumbh Mela Stampede 2013)
- In this case the Allahabad High Court issued directives for the State similar as obligatory medication of crowd management plan by the state government, ensuring the availability of medical installations and emergency response brigades and setting up temporary hospitals and first aid centres at the event point. If all of these directives are duly followed, farther stampede death incidents can be drastically reduced in India.
Conclusion
India has been facing the problem of Stampede deaths for many years, the main root cause of this problem is the lack of legal measures for the efficient crowd management in the country . The main purpose of this article is to highlight the absence of proper legislative measure in the country regarding stampede.To avoid this kind of problem in future, Indian Government should consider making a specific legislation for the rules and regulations that deals with public gatherings in any event such as religious, political, sports or anything. It should set rules for the event management to keep emergency exits , provide basic medical facilities, proper planning on crowd management , monitoring of crowds, and getting proper permission from the government. If a legislation including all preventive measures to avoid stampede death was made , it would be possible to say that this kind of event is not able to take place . In making the legislation, the Government should primarily focus on public safety.
The Government should also impose proper punishments and fines for non- compliance with the legislation. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done – both in courts and in public conscience.
For absolute evasion of Stampede deaths only Government’s initiative is not enough , it also needs efforts from the event organizers. They should focus on good planning, venue design, crowd management,real time surveillance, clear communication to the public and emergency preparedness.If efforts are made from both the parties this kind of events in the future will be prevented .
FAQs
1.What caused the Bangalore stampede at the RCB Unbox event?
The stampede was caused by a combination of overcrowding, poor crowd control measures, and lack of sufficient emergency response mechanisms during the celebration of Royal Challengers Bangalore’s victory in IPL 2025.
2.What legal provisions are applicable to the Bangalore stampede?
The relevant legal provisions include Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Causing Death by Negligence) and Section 100 (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder).
3.Who can be made liable for this stampede?
The State , Police Officers and RCB Management , all could be made liable for this stampede because there is negligence among all them.RCB Management failed to make proper ticket management, State failed to deploy more public officers to manage the crowd, Police Officers failed to manage the overcrowded situation.
4.What legal reforms are necessary to prevent future stampedes?
There is an urgent need for specific legislation on crowd management, stricter safety regulations for public events, and clear legal responsibilities for event organizers, local authorities, and police. This could help ensure accountability and prevent such incidents from recurring in the future.
5. What is the role of the police and local authorities in preventing such incidents?
The police and local authorities are responsible for ensuring public safety by enforcing crowd control measures, providing adequate manpower, and coordinating with event organizers. Failure to carry out these duties can lead to liability for administrative negligence.
6.What law does this incident affect in the country ?
This incident affects criminal law (Sec 100&106 of BNS,2023) , civil law (Negligence and Death in relation to torts), constitutional law (Right to life – Article 21), administrative law (accountability of state and public officers).
