Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s jubilant homecoming after their maiden IPL title has drawn sharp criticism from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). In a 29-page ruling released on Tuesday, a two-member bench of Justice BK Shrivastava and Santosh Mehra held the franchise “responsible” for attracting “three to five lakh people” to the streets outside the M Chinnaswamy Stadium on 4 June. Eleven supporters died and more than 50 were injured when the packed crowd surged, a tragedy the bench said the police simply could not contain.
Key findings come first
• The tribunal agreed that RCB, owned by Diageo, “created nuisance” by pressing ahead with an open-top parade and stadium celebration without the mandatory licences.
• It noted that neither the club nor its event partner, M/S DNA Entertainment Network, applied for permission under the 2009 Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Procession order, which requires seven days’ notice.
• Inspector General Vikash Kumar, suspended alongside four other officers for alleged “substantial dereliction of duty”, successfully challenged his punishment; CAT has ordered his reinstatement.
What the paperwork shows
A day before the final, Karnataka State Cricket Association chief executive Shubhendu Ghosh wrote to Cubbon Park police “on behalf of DNA Network” saying that, should RCB triumph, there could be “potential victory parades” culminating in celebrations inside the ground. The route map went in with the letter, but—crucially—no formal request for clearance.
CAT underlined that the note made it “not certain” RCB would win and carried no “any request for granting the permission”. Its judgment added: “The organiser did not wait for the response of the Police. At the eleventh hour, they submitted a letter and started the scheduled programme.”
Social media then fanned interest. At 7.01 am on 4 June the franchise posted that a “victory parade is scheduled in Bengaluru”, triggering, in the tribunal’s words, a “gathering of immense proportion”.
Police response, or lack of it?
The Karnataka government had argued that Kumar and his colleagues failed to seek “guidance”, let the situation go “out of control, meant a lot of misery, loss of precious life and embarrassment”. CAT accepted that the crowd overwhelmed normal policing resources but concluded the officers could hardly regulate an event that was never officially sanctioned.
Speaking outside the hearing, a senior state-home-department source said the verdict was “likely to spark a fresh look at how sporting events are policed in the city”, while a local safety consultant told us the order “places primary responsibility on organisers—exactly where it should lie”.
What next for RCB?
The franchise is yet to comment publicly on the ruling. Legal observers expect a fine and possible civil action from families of the deceased. One Bengaluru-based lawyer, preferring not to be named because of ongoing enquiries, said the wording “created nuisance” could be pivotal: “It opens the door to compensation claims and even criminal charges if negligence is proved.”
Lessons for the wider game
Victory parades have become routine for IPL sides, though crowd estimates usually stay well below the “three to five lakh” range. Safety consultant Arjun Menon notes that a proactive permit process “allows police to allocate barricades, medical tents and exit lanes—simple steps that make a huge difference.” For supporters, the ruling is a painful reminder that celebrations must still follow the rule-book.
In short
A night of sporting joy turned tragic because basic regulatory boxes were left unticked. CAT’s decision pulls few punches, fixes accountability on organisers and, in reinstating the senior policeman, emphasises that enforcement can only begin once an event is formally on the books. The ball is now in RCB’s court to respond, rebuild trust and ensure that their next lap of honour is remembered for the right reasons.
