Case at a Glance
A public interest petition followed the stampede at the Chorbagan Sarbojanin Durga Puja pandal in Kolkata on 17 October 2026, which, according to the petition, left 19 people dead and about 25 injured. By the time the matter was heard, the State had already decided to set up an inquiry commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and had asked the Chief Justice to spare a serving judge to head it. The Vacation Bench recorded the State’s proposed Terms of Reference — including lapses of each agency and compensation for victims — left the choice of a serving judge to the Chief Justice on the administrative side (failing which a retired judge would head it), said the High Court would not monitor the inquiry, and kept the PIL pending.
According to the petition, on 17 October 2026 a stampede occurred at the Chorbagan Sarbojanin Durga Puja pandal in Kolkata in which 19 people, including a young child, died and about 25 were injured. The petitioner alleged gross negligence and mismanagement, listing narrow and inadequate gates, insufficient police for crowd control, poor lighting, a wrong announcement by the organisers over the microphone, and the lack of an emergency plan, ambulances or medical teams. He clarified that he sought no relief against the private individuals or newspapers arrayed as respondents.
On 18 October 2026, the Chief Secretary wrote to the Chief Justice asking that a serving judge be spared to head an inquiry commission, annexing proposed Terms of Reference. Before the Vacation Bench, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay for the petitioner sought a commission headed by a retired judge with wide terms covering organisers, police, the Municipal Corporation and the Public Works Department, and ultimately agreed with the State’s proposed terms. The State said it had already decided, as the appropriate Government, to appoint a commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
The Key Question Before the Court
When the State has already decided to set up a judicial inquiry into a public tragedy, what role should the High Court play on a PIL — and can a sitting judge be spared to head the commission?
Sitting Judges on Commissions: The T. Fenn Walter Guidelines
The Bench reproduced the guidelines in T. Fenn Walter v. Union of India, (2002) 07 SC CK 0015, (2002) 6 SCC 184, under which appointment of sitting judges as inquiry commissioners should be rare and reserved for matters of paramount importance, and the Chief Justice’s role when consulted is central. It noted that the High Court’s sanctioned strength is 72 judges against a working strength of 50, which would fall to 48 with two retirements due in October and November 2026. Whether to spare a serving judge was therefore a matter for the Chief Justice on the administrative side; if not, the State would appoint the commission “by appointing a retired Judge of this Court, strictly in accordance with the law applicable.”
Recording that “the State Government has already declared its decision to appoint an Inquiry Commission”, the court reproduced the State’s proposed Terms of Reference, which may be modified as the Chief Justice deems fit. They cover the sequence and causes of the stampede, including crowd size, announcements and gate arrangements; the structural adequacy of passages and barricades; the response of organisers, police, ambulance services, hospitals, fire and civic bodies; examination of CCTV, call and medical records; permissions and crowd-management plans; assignment of lapses to the organisers, police, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, PWD, Fire Services, CESC or others; measures to regulate large Durga Puja gatherings; and assistance, compensation and rehabilitation for victims, including the adequacy of ex gratia. The court made clear that “the High Court would not be monitoring the inquiry.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The State’s proposed Terms of Reference for the inquiry commission were recorded, subject to modification by the Chief Justice.
- Whether a serving judge can be spared to head the commission is for the Chief Justice on the administrative side, applying T. Fenn Walter v. Union of India; otherwise a retired judge of the Calcutta High Court is to head it.
- The High Court will not monitor the inquiry; the State will deal with the commission’s report.
- The PIL was kept pending, with liberty to the petitioner to address the court after the report, and all contentions, including maintainability, kept open.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It sets out a wide-ranging framework for fixing responsibility for a crowd disaster at a major festival.
- It expressly includes compensation and rehabilitation of victims, and the adequacy of ex gratia, within the inquiry.
- It illustrates the careful approach courts take before sparing sitting judges for executive inquiries.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Victims’ Families
- Compensation and rehabilitation, including adequacy of ex gratia, are within the commission’s terms.
- The PIL remains pending, so the matter can return to court after the report.
For Counsel and Authorities
- The terms cover organisers, police, KMC, PWD, Fire Services and CESC; records like CCTV and call logs will be examined.
- The T. Fenn Walter guidelines govern requests for sitting judges to head commissions.
- Maintainability of the PIL has not been decided.
Key Takeaways
- An inquiry commission under the 1952 Act is to probe the stampede.
- The Chief Justice will decide whether a sitting judge can head it.
- The High Court will not monitor the inquiry.
- The PIL is pending, with all contentions open.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the High Court fix responsibility for the stampede?
No. This is an order recording the inquiry framework. Responsibility is for the commission to examine under its Terms of Reference.
Who will head the inquiry commission?
The Chief Justice will decide on the administrative side whether a serving judge can be spared; if not, the State is to appoint a retired judge of the Calcutta High Court.
Will victims get compensation?
The order itself does not award compensation, but the Terms of Reference include assistance, compensation and rehabilitation of victims and the adequacy of ex gratia.
Conclusion
Three days after the stampede, the Calcutta High Court ensured that the State’s inquiry would have wide terms reaching every agency involved and the question of compensation, while respecting the limits on sparing sitting judges and keeping the PIL alive.
Practical takeaway: For public tragedies, a PIL can secure a structured inquiry framework; the substantive findings and compensation questions will follow the commission’s report.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com