A two-member bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has placed primary responsibility for the 4 June crush outside the M Chinnaswamy Stadium on Royal Challengers Bengaluru. The judges said the IPL champions “created nuisance” by pressing ahead with their celebratory parade without first securing the mandatory approvals. Eleven people died, more than 50 were hurt and the city police, short on both notice and numbers, had little chance of keeping a crowd estimated at “three to five lakh people” under control.
Justice BK Shrivastava and Santosh Mehra delivered the 29-page ruling on Tuesday while hearing a petition from Vikash Kumar, Inspector-General and additional commissioner, Bengaluru (West). Kumar, along with four colleagues, was suspended by the Karnataka government for what officials called “substantial dereliction of duty” and failure to seek “guidance” – lapses the state said left the situation “out of control, meant a lot of misery, loss of precious life and embarrassment”. CAT has now quashed those suspensions and ordered Kumar’s reinstatement.
Key to the decision was the tribunal’s finding that neither RCB nor their event agency, M/S DNA Entertainment Network, submitted the standard application under the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Procession (Bengaluru City) Order, 2009. That form, due seven days in advance, simply wasn’t filed.
“The organiser did not wait for the response of the Police,” the bench observed. “At the eleventh hour, they submitted a letter and started the scheduled programme.”
How the plan unfolded
On the morning after the IPL final, at 07:01, RCB announced on its social-media channels that a “victory parade is scheduled in Bengaluru”. Within minutes the post had travelled widely, supporters converging on the stadium and the roads leading to it. Police sources say officers on night duty called superiors after spotting the first wave of fans but there was no time to draft in reinforcements, seal side streets or install barricades.
The only formal communication to police arrived the previous evening. Shubhendu Ghosh, chief executive of the Karnataka State Cricket Association, wrote to the inspector at Cubbon Park police station on DNA’s behalf stating that, should RCB win, there would be “potential victory parades” culminating in celebrations inside the ground. The note set out a provisional route but, as CAT pointed out, made no request for permission and was filed before the result was even known – “not certain RCB would win the final”.
Former India pacer Venkatesh Prasad told local television the oversight was baffling. “Everyone in Bengaluru knows how passionate the RCB following is – you cannot spring a victory parade on the city with a few hours’ notice and expect things to run smoothly.”
Why policing matters
Large gatherings in the city centre ordinarily require a detailed safety plan: crowd-flow maps, medical posts, clear signage, temporary stands and agreed cut-off numbers. Superintendent Anitha Rao, who managed security for last October’s World Cup match at the same venue, explained: “Once that seven-day window is missed, you’re scrambling. Even if an event looks harmless, the process forces organisers to think through worst-case scenarios.” Speaking to this paper, she described the 4 June parade as “a gathering of immense proportion without the scaffolding”.
DNA Entertainment declined to comment on the ruling, while RCB and parent company Diageo have yet to issue a fresh statement. Soon after the tragedy the franchise said it was “heart-broken” and would support the injured and the families of those who died.
Balancing accountability
Legal analyst Prof Ramesh Saxena believes the CAT decision is significant. “By reinstating the officers, the bench hasn’t absolved the police of every misstep, but it has clarified that responsibility begins with organisers following the law. If that first link fails, the entire chain is vulnerable.”
For RCB the outcome raises questions beyond legal liability. Marketing consultant Sahana Menon argues sponsors will be uneasy. “Brands like to be tied to feelgood stories – lifting the title, uniting the city. A preventable disaster leaves a stain that takes years to wash away.”
What happens next
State officials have hinted at a review of event-permitting rules. One proposal is a digital portal that locks applications seven days out, making last-minute ceremonies impossible. Another is a sliding scale of mandatory police deployment costs, funded by organisers.
Meanwhile, families await compensation. The Karnataka government has announced an ex-gratia payment, but lawyers for several victims say they will pursue civil claims against RCB, DNA and the stadium authorities.
Perspective, not blame game
Tragedies around sporting celebrations are sadly not rare, cricket historian Pradeep Magazine notes. “From Kolkata’s Eden Gardens in ’96 to Pakistan’s National Stadium blackouts, we’ve seen how quickly joy can turn. The lesson is simple: meticulous planning isn’t bureaucracy for its own sake – it saves lives.”
RCB’s maiden title remains a landmark for the franchise; no verdict can change that. Yet the excitement of that night now sits alongside profound loss. In Shrivastava J’s words, the club’s decision to press on without clearance “created nuisance”. The phrase is clinical, almost cold, but it captures the avoidable chain of events that cost eleven supporters their lives.
