RCB and Event Organiser Move Karnataka High Court Seeking Quashing of Criminal Case in Chinnaswamy Stadium Stampede Tragedy

In the aftermath of the tragic stampede at Bengaluru’s M Chinnaswamy Stadium, which claimed 11 lives and left dozens injured, Royal Challengers Sports Limited (RCSL) — the parent company of IPL franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) — has filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the criminal case registered against it in connection with the incident.

The stampede occurred during a celebratory event held to felicitate the RCB team following its historic maiden Indian Premier League (IPL) title win.

The incident, marked by overcrowding and chaos, has sparked public outcry and raised serious questions about the planning and execution of the event, particularly in terms of crowd control and public safety.

Petition by RCB’s Parent Firm

In its plea to the High Court, RCSL has argued that it has been wrongly and unfairly named as an accused in the First Information Report (FIR) filed after the incident.

The company maintained that its role was limited to being the team owner and that it had no direct involvement in the on-ground event logistics or crowd management, which were primarily handled by external entities, including the event management company and local authorities.

RCSL’s legal team pointed out that the organisation had issued clear advisories on social media platforms ahead of the event, explicitly stating that the event had limited seating capacity and that entry would only be allowed through mandatory pre-registration, even for free passes.

According to the petition, this was an attempt to control the inflow of fans and prevent overcrowding — a proactive measure that, RCSL contends, indicates its lack of negligence or liability in the mishap.

Event Management Company Also Files Petition

DNA Entertainment Networks Pvt Ltd, the firm responsible for organising and executing the RCB victory celebration event, has also filed a separate petition in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the FIR registered against it. The company has claimed that the unfortunate incident was not a consequence of its mismanagement but rather due to shortcomings in crowd control arrangements made by the police.

DNA Entertainment’s petition specifically alleges that there was a significant delay in opening the stadium gates, which may have contributed to the stampede. According to their submission, the gates, originally scheduled to open at 1:45 PM, were only opened around 3:00 PM.

This delay allegedly caused restive crowds to swell in front of the stadium’s entry points, resulting in a sudden and uncontrollable surge of people once the gates finally opened.

Case Background and Legal Developments

Following the tragic incident, the police registered a case under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder and negligent conduct endangering human life. Several officials and organisers have already faced suspensions and departmental inquiries.

Amid mounting criticism over the handling of the event, the Bengaluru Police and state administration have come under scrutiny, with allegations of poor coordination, inadequate security personnel, and the absence of emergency response measures.

The tragedy has triggered widespread political and public debate about the responsibilities of private organisers versus public agencies in managing large-scale public events.

High Court Hearing Expected Soon

The Karnataka High Court is expected to take up the matter for a preliminary hearing later on Monday afternoon. Legal experts suggest the court may first examine whether the petitions meet the threshold for quashing the FIR at this stage of the investigation, or whether a full trial is warranted based on the evidence gathered so far.

Meanwhile, the families of the victims continue to seek justice and accountability. Civil society groups have called for an independent judicial probe into the incident, arguing that both corporate and government entities must be held responsible for lapses that led to the avoidable loss of life.

As the legal battle unfolds, the tragic stampede has become a flashpoint in the larger conversation around public safety protocols, especially in events involving large crowds and high-profile entities.