A Comprehensive Legal Analysis of the

Bengaluru Stampede: Accountability,

Liability, and Systemic Failures
I. Executive Summary
The Bengaluru stampede, a tragic event occurring on June 4, 2025, following the Royal
Challengers Bengaluru's (RCB) Indian Premier League (IPL) victory, resulted in 11 fatalities and
numerous injuries. This incident immediately triggered a complex legal response aimed at
identifying accountability and liability across multiple stakeholders. Initial investigations and
First Information Reports (FIRs) have pointed towards criminal negligence and culpable
homicide not amounting to murder against the event organizers, DNA Entertainment, and the
Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA). The incident has also brought to light significant
lapses in police protocol and allegations of political interference, leading to the suspension of
senior police officers. The ongoing legal processes, including a judicial commission and High
Court oversight, are poised to determine the full extent of criminal and civil liabilities, with the
broader aim of establishing a robust framework for future public safety at large-scale events.
II. Incident Reconstruction and Key Facts
The Bengaluru stampede unfolded as a direct consequence of a series of missteps and a
critical failure in crowd management.
Chronology of Events: RCB’s IPL Victory, Planned Felicitation Parade,
and the Stampede

The sequence of events leading to the tragedy began on June 3, 2025, when Royal
Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) secured their maiden IPL title by defeating Punjab Kings in
Ahmedabad [User Query]. This historic win ignited widespread euphoria among fans, setting
the stage for celebratory events in Bengaluru.
On June 4, 2025, between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM IST, a felicitation parade for the victorious
RCB team was organized. The planned route extended from Vidhana Soudha to the M.
Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru [User Query]. Crucially, this event proceeded despite the
absence of formal permission from authorities and explicit warnings from the police [User
Query].
The stampede itself was primarily triggered by the announcement of "free digital passes" or
"free public entry" to the celebratory event at the stadium [User Query].1 This announcement,
disseminated through RCB's official social media channels, is alleged by the FIR to have
provided misleading information, directly causing a massive, uncontrolled gathering around
the stadium gates.2 The sheer volume of attendees, estimated at 200,000 to 300,000
people, vastly overwhelmed the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium's official capacity of 35,000,
leading to severe crush injuries and suffocation among the crowd [User Query].1
Analysis of Crowd Dynamics: "Free Digital Passes," Crowd Estimates
vs. Stadium Capacity

The decision to announce "free digital passes" or "free public entry" served as a direct
catalyst for the catastrophe, fundamentally undermining traditional crowd control
mechanisms. This digital dissemination meant that the usual safeguards, such as controlled
ticket sales that inherently limit numbers and provide data for planning, were bypassed or
rendered ineffective. The absence of a financial barrier to entry, coupled with the immense
public enthusiasm, created an unpredictable and unmanageable influx of people. As noted in
analyses of crowd safety, free-entry events or overselling tickets are known to attract
unpredictable crowds, significantly increasing the risk of stampedes.5 The FIR's specific
allegation of "misleading information about free entry" 3 underscores that this was not a mere
oversight but a critical failure in anticipating human behavior in response to incentives,
directly leading to the stampede. This aspect of the event elevates the discussion beyond
simple negligence to a more profound disregard for public safety protocols.
Furthermore, the police force found itself severely under-resourced and overstretched due to
competing demands and a lack of coordinated planning. The Bengaluru police were tasked
with managing multiple, overlapping events simultaneously on the day of the stampede,
including the RCB team's arrival at the airport, their transport to the team hotel, a government
felicitation ceremony, and the main RCB event at Chinnaswamy Stadium.6 Police sources
indicated that their resources were "stretched thin" and that they had only about three hours
to arrange security at four to five locations.6 The Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP),
Vidhana Soudha Division, Bengaluru, had issued a warning letter highlighting staff shortages
and security concerns.7 This situation highlights a critical conflict between organizational and
political ambitions and the practical limitations of safety. The "unilateral decision" by RCB to
hold a parade without obtaining police permission, combined with the state government's
"eleventh-hour decision" to hold its own felicitation event, created a chaotic and
uncoordinated environment.6 This compelled the police to divide their already limited
resources across several locations, significantly compromising overall security and crowd
control, particularly at the stadium where the tragedy occurred.6 This breakdown in
coordination and the prioritization of public spectacle over safety points to a systemic
contradiction in governance and event management. The subsequent claims by police unions
of political motivation behind the suspensions of senior officers [User Query]8 further suggest
a systemic issue where police protocols may be undermined by executive directives, leading
to a deflection of accountability onto operational personnel rather than the ultimate
decision-makers.
Tragic Consequences: Fatalities and Injuries

The stampede resulted in a devastating loss of life and widespread injuries. Eleven individuals,
aged between 14 and 29 years (six men and five women), lost their lives, primarily during the
desperate rush towards the closed gates of the stadium [User Query]. In addition to the
fatalities, between 50 and 75 people sustained injuries, including serious crush injuries and
asphyxia [User Query]. Other reports specify 56 injured 9 or over 70 injured.11
Table: Bengaluru Stampede: Key Events and Crowd Data

Date Event Location Police Announc Estimate Stadium Fatalities Injuries

Permissi ed d Crowd Capacity
on Status Crowd Size
Trigger
June 3, RCB Ahmedab N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2025 defeated ad
Punjab
Kings in
IPL final
June 4, Felicitatio Vidhana No formal Free 200,000 35,000 11 50-75
2025 n Parade Soudha permissio digital –
& Stadium to M. n passes/en 300,000
Event Chinnasw try
amy
Stadium

III. Legal Framework for Public Gatherings and Event

Safety in India
The legal landscape governing public gatherings and event safety in India is multi-layered,
encompassing various statutes, regulations, and judicial pronouncements designed to ensure
public order and prevent tragedies.
Regulatory Landscape

Relevant Provisions of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963: This Act provides local authorities
with significant powers to regulate public events.
●​ Section 31 grants the Commissioner and District Magistrate the authority to license
places of amusement or entertainment, to halt their operation if they pose a threat or
inconvenience, and to regulate entry and exit to ensure public safety.12 This provision is
directly applicable to events held at venues like the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium.
●​ Section 35 empowers these authorities to prohibit specific acts, including assemblies
or processions, when deemed necessary for the preservation of public peace or
safety.13 This could have been invoked to prevent the unauthorized parade or to control
the size of the gathering.
●​ Section 39 addresses the issuance of orders for maintaining order at ceremonials,
 corporate displays, or organized assemblages in public places where disputes or
contentions might lead to grave consequences.14 This section directly applies to the
nature of a victory parade and public felicitation.
Application of Section 144 of the CrPC for Crowd Control: Section 144 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a critical legal instrument that allows executive magistrates to
temporarily prohibit public gatherings, typically of four or more people, in situations posing an
imminent threat to public safety or likely to breach peace. This includes the power to ban
processions and restrict movement in specific areas.15 It is a standard measure for preventing
potential stampedes.16
Provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005: This Act establishes a comprehensive
legal framework for disaster management, including provisions for preparedness, mitigation,
and response to various disasters, implicitly covering crowd-related incidents such as
stampedes.16 The Act emphasizes proactive measures to prevent such tragedies.
Event Permissions and Compliance

Mandatory No Objection Certificates (NOCs): Organizing large public events in Bengaluru

necessitates obtaining various NOCs from local authorities.19 These typically include:
●​ Police NOC: Essential for crowd control, security arrangements, and maintaining law
and order.19 The FIR explicitly states that the RCB event was organized "without
obtaining the mandatory permissions from local authorities".22
●​ Fire Safety NOC: Issued by the local fire department to ensure the venue's safety from
fire hazards, including adequate fire extinguishers and emergency exits.19
●​ Health and Sanitation NOC: Issued by the local health department to ensure
compliance with health and sanitation standards.19
●​ Noise Pollution NOC: Issued by the pollution control board to prevent excessive noise
pollution.19
●​ Traffic NOC: Issued by the local traffic police department to ensure adequate traffic
management and smooth flow.19
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Large Public Events: In the aftermath of the
stampede, the Karnataka government announced its intention to formulate and implement
new SOPs for all large public events to prevent similar incidents.9 The Karnataka High Court
specifically questioned whether existing SOPs for managing crowds exceeding 50,000
people were in place and if formal permissions for the event had been obtained.1
Duty of Care in Event Management

Legal Principles of Duty of Care, Foreseeability, and Breach of Duty in Negligence:

●​ Duty of Care: Event organizers, sports associations, and stadium owners bear a
common law duty of care to ensure the safety and security of attendees and to maintain
a safe venue.24 This duty is foundational for establishing criminal negligence, compelling
individuals and organizations to act in a manner that avoids foreseeable harm to
others.26
 ●​ Breach of Duty: A breach occurs when an individual or entity fails to uphold this duty
of care, either through actions (commission) or inactions (omission), thereby falling
short of the expected standard of care.26
●​ Foreseeability: Liability for negligence arises only if the injury or harm was foreseeable.
A duty is owed if the defendant could reasonably anticipate the consequences of their
actions or inactions.27 In this context, the explicit police warnings regarding "lakhs" of
attendees 7 and the stark contrast with the stadium's capacity clearly establish the
foreseeability of severe crowd control issues and potential harm.
Responsibilities of Event Organizers, Sports Associations, and Stadium Owners:
●​ Event Organizers (DNA Entertainment): As the primary organizers, DNA
Entertainment was responsible for comprehensive planning, managing logistics (venue
setup, transportation, technical requirements), selecting and managing suppliers, and
financial oversight.30 Their duties specifically included obtaining necessary licenses and
permits, ensuring adequate insurance coverage (event liability and public liability),
deploying security personnel as per police NOC, and conducting last-minute safety
checks.20 Without commercial general liability insurance, organizers could face personal
liability for accidents or injuries.31
●​ Sports Associations (Karnataka State Cricket Association - KSCA): As the
administrative body controlling cricket in Karnataka and the custodian of the M.
Chinnaswamy Stadium, KSCA's role involved providing logistical support for the event 33
and ensuring stadium security.6 While KSCA asserted its role was limited to venue rental
and assisting with permissions, claiming crowd management was RCB's and the police's
responsibility 34, the FIR names them for alleged negligence in the crowd-control
disaster.3
●​ Stadium Owners: Stadium owners bear a legal responsibility (premises liability) to
maintain a safe environment for visitors.25 This includes addressing unsafe conditions,
poor maintenance, and providing adequate security. They could be held liable for
injuries if security failures lead to stampedes.25 Specific duties include inspecting for
loose railings, ensuring proper lighting, and providing adequate warning signs.25 Many
venues mandate that event organizers carry liability insurance.32
The significant gap between legal mandates and practical enforcement is a critical
observation in this incident. Despite the existence of numerous legal requirements for event
safety, including mandatory NOCs, a clear duty of care, and the need for SOPs, the event
proceeded without formal permission, and explicit police warnings were disregarded [User
Query].1 This indicates a multi-layered failure to adhere to established legal frameworks. The
absence of formal permission and the disregard for explicit police warnings directly led to
inadequate crowd control, insufficient security, and a lack of emergency preparedness. The
decision to proceed, despite police warnings about "lakhs" of attendees 7 and the stadium's
limited capacity, points to a conscious choice to bypass safety protocols. This suggests a
regulatory environment where permissions are either not sought, not enforced, or easily
circumvented. This highlights a deep-seated systemic weakness in the enforcement and
accountability mechanisms surrounding public events in India. Laws and regulations exist, but
their practical application and the willingness of authorities and organizers to adhere to them,
especially under pressure or for public spectacle, appear deficient. The post-incident
announcement of a new SOP 9 implicitly acknowledges that existing procedures were either
insufficient or not followed, or that enforcement was lacking. This recurring pattern across
various Indian stampede tragedies 16 suggests that the problem lies not merely in the absence
of law, but in its consistent under-enforcement and the lack of robust accountability when
breaches occur.
The concept of foreseeability stands as a linchpin of culpability in this case. Police explicitly
warned of "lakhs" of fans 7 and advised against the event due to security concerns and staff
shortages.6 The stark contrast between the stadium's capacity of 35,000 and the expected
crowd of 200,000-300,000 [User Query]1 means that the risk of a stampede was not merely
a possibility but was explicitly foreseen and communicated by law enforcement. The failure to
act on these explicit warnings and foreseeable risks constitutes a clear and aggravated
breach of the duty of care by all responsible parties—event organizers, KSCA, police
leadership, and potentially the government. This direct link between the knowledge of risk and
inaction elevates the potential charges from simple negligence (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS) Section 106 / Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 304A) to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder (BNS Section 105 / IPC Section 304 Part II), which requires "knowledge"
of likely death.39 The high degree of foreseeability makes it difficult for defendants to claim
the event was an "unforeseeable accident." This significantly strengthens the prosecution's
case and makes it challenging for defendants to rely on defenses of unforeseen
circumstances. It shifts the legal focus from an unfortunate accident to a deliberate disregard
for known, high-risk conditions. This could set a powerful precedent, compelling future event
organizers to take warnings more seriously and prioritize safety measures, as the legal
consequences for ignoring foreseeable risks become more severe.
Table: Key Legal Requirements for Public Events in Bengaluru

Requirement Type Specific Requirement Relevant Responsible Party

Act/Regulation
(where applicable)
Permissions Local Municipal Local Municipal Bylaws Event Organizer
Permission
Police NOC (Crowd Karnataka Police Act, Event Organizer, Police
Control, Security) 1963 (Sec 31, 35, 39)
Fire Safety NOC Local Fire Department Event Organizer, Venue
Regulations Owner
Health & Sanitation Local Health Event Organizer
NOC Department
Regulations
Noise Pollution NOC Pollution Control Board Event Organizer
Regulations
 Traffic NOC Local Traffic Police Event Organizer, Police
Department
Regulations
Safety Measures Adequate Security Police NOC, Event Event Organizer, Police
Personnel Deployment Management Best
Practices
Fire Safety Equipment Fire Safety NOC Event Organizer, Venue
in Place Owner
Last-Minute Safety Event Management Event Organizer
Checks Best Practices
Capacity Limits Venue Licensing, Event Organizer, Venue
Adherence Public Safety Owner
Regulations
Emergency Disaster Management Event Organizer, Police,
Preparedness Plans Act, 2005 Government
Financial Event Liability & Public Event Management Event Organizer
Liability Insurance Best Practices, Venue
Requirements

IV. Criminal Liability and Charges

The legal actions initiated following the Bengaluru stampede reflect the gravity of the
incident, with authorities pursuing charges that extend beyond simple negligence to a higher
degree of culpability.
Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (BNS Section 105 / IPC
Section 304)

The First Information Report (FIR) registered against RCB management, DNA Entertainment,
and KSCA specifically invokes BNS Section 105 3, which corresponds to IPC Section 304. This
section delineates two parts:
●​ Part I: Applies when the act causing death is committed with the intention of causing
death or bodily injury likely to cause death. This carries a higher degree of culpability
and a more severe punishment, potentially life imprisonment or up to ten years, along
with a fine.39
●​ Part II: Applies when the act is committed with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
death, but without any direct intention to cause death. This part carries a lesser degree
of culpability than Part I, with punishment extending up to ten years imprisonment, or a
fine, or both.39 Part II is frequently applied in cases where negligence or recklessness
leads to death.39
In the context of the stampede, the prosecution will likely pursue charges under Part II of BNS
Section 105. The element of "knowledge" that their actions (or omissions) were likely to cause
death would be supported by the explicit police warnings regarding the massive crowd and
security concerns, as well as the well-known disparity between crowd estimates and the
stadium's capacity. This strong evidence of prior knowledge and the decision by organizers
and KSCA to proceed, or to announce free passes, despite this clear understanding of high
risk, directly links their actions to the "likelihood of causing death." This elevates the potential
charges beyond simple criminal negligence (BNS 106 / IPC 304A), which carries a lesser
penalty.42 A successful conviction under BNS 105 Part II for a stampede incident would
establish a significant legal precedent for holding event organizers and associated entities to
a higher standard of accountability in crowd management. It would move beyond merely
punishing carelessness to recognizing a higher degree of culpability where known, severe
risks are consciously ignored. This could have a substantial deterrent effect, influencing future
event planning regulations and enforcement across India, compelling organizers to be far
more cautious when faced with explicit warnings about public safety.
Criminal Negligence (BNS Section 106 / IPC Section 304A)

Definition and Elements: IPC Section 304A (now BNS Section 106) punishes causing death
by any rash or negligent act that does not amount to culpable homicide.42 The maximum
punishment is two years imprisonment, a fine, or both.42 Criminal negligence is defined as a
failure to adhere to a reasonable standard of care, so egregious that it constitutes a gross
deviation from the expected standard, resulting in harm or significant risk of harm to others.26
To establish criminal negligence, the prosecution must prove: (1) a Duty of Care owed to the
victim; (2) a Breach of that Duty (failure to act as a reasonably prudent person); and (3)
Causation (a direct link between the negligent act and the resulting harm).26 A "gross
deviation" implies a significant lapse in judgment or action beyond mere carelessness,
indicating a serious breach of duty.26 While criminal negligence does not require intent to
harm, recklessness implies a conscious disregard for risks.26
Distinction from Civil Negligence: The legal threshold for a criminal negligence conviction is
considerably higher than for civil negligence. Prosecutors must demonstrate that the
defendant was aware of the risk and consciously chose to act in a manner that grossly
deviated from what a reasonable person would do.45
Corporate and Organizational Liability

The FIR explicitly names RCB, DNA Entertainment, and KSCA for criminal negligence and
culpable homicide not amounting to murder [User Query].3 The legal system is actively
attempting to hold both the corporate entities and the responsible individuals accountable for
the tragedy. In India, corporate criminal liability is primarily governed by the Companies Act,
2013, and other relevant legislation.47 Corporations, as legal entities, can be held accountable
for criminal actions undertaken in their name or for their benefit.47 Key doctrines include:
●​ Vicarious Liability Doctrine: This doctrine holds corporations responsible for the
criminal acts of their employees or agents when those acts are committed within the
scope of their employment or agency.47 This applies even if the employee's actions were
 against company policy, provided they were within the scope of employment.47
●​ Identification Doctrine: This doctrine attributes the mens rea (guilty mind) of key
individuals, such as directors or senior management, to the company itself, treating
their actions as the actions of the corporation.47
●​ Collective Knowledge Doctrine: This doctrine considers the combined knowledge and
actions of various employees or agents within a corporation to determine criminal
liability, allowing for the aggregation of information known to different individuals to
establish corporate knowledge and intent.47
It is important to note that in cases where mandatory imprisonment is prescribed for an
offense, Indian courts have clarified that fines can be imposed on corporations instead of
imprisonment.47 The high probability of harm was explicitly foreseeable due to the immense
crowd estimates and the specific warnings issued by the police. This foreseeability is a critical
element in establishing the culpability of the organizations.
Individual Arrests and Legal Challenges

Four individuals were arrested in connection with the stampede: Nikhil Sosale (RCB’s
Marketing Head), Sunil Mathew, Kiran Kumar, and Sumanth (all DNA Entertainment executives)
[User Query]. All four were subsequently remanded to 14-day judicial custody [User Query].
Nikhil Sosale challenged his arrest, arguing it was "illegal, arbitrary, and not in accordance
with the law," claiming it occurred "without any materials and even before the police had
conducted a preliminary enquiry" [User Query].2 While the High Court declined interim relief
for Sosale [User Query], it granted interim protection from arrest to KSCA officials.3
The defense arguments for individuals like Sosale and the KSCA officials highlight the inherent
complexities of attributing mens rea to individuals within a large corporate structure.
Decisions in such organizations are often collective, influenced by various departments, and
potentially subject to external pressures. The Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) guidelines
are particularly relevant here. This landmark Supreme Court case established crucial
directives to prevent unnecessary arrests by police and unauthorized detentions by
magistrates, especially for offenses punishable with less than seven years imprisonment.54
Police must be satisfied that an arrest is necessary to prevent further offense, ensure proper
investigation, prevent evidence tampering, or ensure the accused's presence in court.54
Sosale's defense likely hinges on whether these guidelines were adhered to, questioning the
necessity and procedural regularity of his arrest. The outcome of this case will significantly
impact how corporate entities manage large public events and their internal decision-making
processes. If individuals are successfully prosecuted, it will compel a re-evaluation of internal
risk assessment protocols, the delegation of authority, and the personal accountability of
senior management in public-facing events. This could lead to a more stringent approach to
ensuring explicit, documented permissions and robust safety plans are in place, as the
personal stakes for executives increase. The resignations of KSCA officials citing "moral
responsibility" 34, even while denying legal liability 35, underscore the growing pressure for
ethical as well as legal accountability in such high-profile incidents.
Complaint Against Virat Kohli

Social activist H.M. Venkatesh filed a complaint against Virat Kohli, alleging that he indirectly
contributed to the tragedy by promoting "gambling through IPL" and inciting people to gather,
thereby transforming the IPL into a "gambling platform" [User Query].22 Police confirmed that
this complaint would be considered under the ongoing FIR [User Query].22
This complaint represents a novel and potentially far-reaching legal claim that attempts to
establish a causal link between a celebrity's general association with a league and the tragic
outcome of a specific event. While Indian law has provisions for celebrity liability in cases of
misleading product endorsements under the Consumer Protection Act, IPC, and Food Safety
and Standards Act 60, and there are proposals to hold them responsible for the quality of
products they endorse 61, extending this to indirect "incitement" for a crowd surge at an event
the celebrity did not directly organize, manage, or specifically promote (beyond general
league promotion) is legally tenuous. The burden of proof to establish a direct and proximate
causal link between Kohli's actions and the stampede would be exceptionally high. It would
require demonstrating that his promotion directly and foreseeably led to the specific crowd
behavior that caused the stampede, which is a difficult evidentiary hurdle. This complaint,
even if legally weak, highlights a broader societal expectation of accountability from public
figures for the consequences of events they are associated with, given their immense
influence. It opens a public debate on the extent of influence celebrities wield and their
moral/ethical responsibility for events linked to their brand, even if they are not directly
involved in operational planning or specific event announcements. The legal outcome will
either reinforce the narrow, direct scope of celebrity liability in such contexts or, if successful,
set a groundbreaking precedent for indirect influence leading to criminal charges, which
would have significant implications for celebrity endorsements and public engagement.
V. Police and Political Accountability
The Bengaluru stampede has cast a harsh spotlight on the roles and responsibilities of both
the police force and political leadership, particularly concerning the alleged disregard for
warnings and the subsequent disciplinary actions.
Police Warnings and Disregard

Prior to the event, the Bengaluru Police issued specific and explicit warnings. The Deputy
Commissioner of Police (DCP), Vidhana Soudha Division, Bengaluru, M.N. Karibasavana
Gowda, sent a three-page warning letter on June 4, hours before the stampede. This letter
clearly flagged critical concerns: the anticipated arrival of "lakhs" (hundreds of thousands) of
RCB fans, a severe shortage of security staff and officers, the lack of CCTV cameras at the
Vidhana Soudha (a vital installation), and significant time constraints for adequate deployment
and coordination with law and order and traffic divisions. The letter also highlighted the need
for an anti-drone system for the heritage Vidhana Soudha building.7 Furthermore, the
Bengaluru city police commissioner, B. Dayananda, had reportedly informed the Chief Minister
that organizing the event on such short notice would be difficult.6
Despite these clear warnings, allegations of political interference and executive directives
overriding police advice have emerged. Police unions and sources within the force contend
that the Chief Minister's office directly instructed Commissioner Dayananda to proceed with
"full arrangements regardless of the risks".8 This suggests that political considerations
potentially overrode professional police judgment and safety concerns. The police were
reportedly compelled to provide security for multiple overlapping events—including the team's
airport arrival, hotel transport, a government felicitation, and the stadium event—despite their
resources being "stretched thin".6 The DCP's warning letter notably concluded by stating that
the department would act "as per the government's directions" 7, indicating a perceived lack
of autonomy and the pressure to comply with executive mandates.
This situation highlights a perilous intersection of political will and public safety protocol.
There is a strong indication that political directives and the desire for a high-profile public
spectacle overrode professional police judgment and established safety protocols, leading to
a severely compromised security environment. This alleged political interference directly
contributed to the inadequate crowd management, as police resources were stretched thin
and their expert advice was seemingly disregarded. The subsequent suspensions, viewed by
the police force as scapegoating, further highlight the inherent tension between executive
authority and police operational autonomy.8 This creates an accountability gap where the
operational arm (police) is blamed, while the directive-issuing authority (political leadership)
is not directly held responsible in the immediate aftermath.
Suspension of Police Officers

Five senior police officers, including Bengaluru Police Commissioner B. Dayananda, were
suspended for "ignoring earlier warnings" [User Query]. The government order explicitly cited
their conduct as a "gross violation of AIS (Conduct) Rules" for IPS officers and "gross violation
of Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965" for ACP and Police Inspector
ranks.7
●​ All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for IPS officers): Rule 3(1)
allows for suspension if disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending, or if a
criminal charge is under investigation or trial.62 Rule 3(2) states that a member detained
for over 48 hours is deemed suspended.62
●​ Karnataka Police Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 (for subordinate
ranks): Rule 5(1) permits suspension when disciplinary proceedings are
contemplated/pending or a criminal case is under investigation/trial.64
The police unions and a segment of the police force expressed outrage at these suspensions,
labeling them "politically motivated" and alleging that senior officers were made "scapegoats"
[User Query].8 They argue that the government orchestrated the event despite known risks
and is now unfairly punishing officers for following orders, which they find deeply
demoralizing.8
State Liability for Police Negligence

The principles of state liability for acts of its employees in India are primarily governed by
Article 300 of the Constitution and have been shaped by judicial interpretations. Historically, a
distinction was made between "sovereign" functions (acts related to state power, such as
maintaining law and order and police actions) and "non-sovereign" functions. The state was
traditionally immune from liability for acts performed under sovereign functions.66
However, modern judicial interpretations have significantly narrowed the scope of sovereign
immunity. Through the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution, courts now frequently award compensation for violations of fundamental rights,
such as the right to life under Article 21, irrespective of whether the act was performed under
a sovereign function.66 This has created a "parallel system of liability" based on constitutional
law rather than traditional tort law.66 Indian courts have, in several instances, awarded
monetary compensation to victims of police misconduct, illegal detention, and custodial
deaths.68 The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also recommends compensation
and disciplinary action against officials if police negligence is established.69

VI. Government and Judicial Response

The government and judiciary have initiated multiple responses to address the Bengaluru
stampede, ranging from formal inquiries to compensatory measures and broader systemic
reviews.
Inquiry Commissions and Judicial Oversight

Justice Michael Cunha Inquiry Commission: Former High Court judge Justice Michael
Cunha has been appointed to lead a one-person inquiry commission into the incident [User
Query]. Commissions of Inquiry in India, established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act,
1952, are vested with powers akin to a Civil Court. They can summon and enforce the
attendance of any person from any part of India, examine them under oath, require the
discovery and production of documents, and requisition public records.70 They can also utilize
the services of investigation agencies for their probes.72 While the findings and
recommendations of such commissions are not legally binding or directly enforceable as
court judgments, the appropriate Government is statutorily obligated to lay the commission's
report before the respective legislative body (Parliament or State Legislature) along with a
memorandum of the action taken thereon within six months of its submission.70 This process
ensures public access to the findings and the government's response.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court: A Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) has been initiated, and the Karnataka High Court has taken suo motu (on its
own motion) cognizance of the incident [User Query]. PILs are a crucial legal mechanism in
India, allowing any public-spirited individual or organization to approach the High Courts
(under Article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) to seek remedies for violations of
legal or constitutional rights, especially for those unable to do so themselves due to social or
economic constraints.75 PILs have widened the scope of constitutional remedies and
enhanced access to justice for marginalized communities.75 The High Court's suo motu action
demonstrates judicial activism in holding the state accountable for public safety failures, as it
has summoned a status report from the government and posed pointed questions regarding
permissions, SOPs, and crowd management measures [User Query].1 This dual pursuit of
accountability through a judicial inquiry commission and criminal prosecution, alongside the
High Court's oversight, provides a comprehensive approach. The judicial commission serves a
broader fact-finding role, aiming to understand systemic failures, while criminal proceedings
focus on individual and corporate culpability.
Civil Remedies and Compensation

Ex-gratia Payments: The Karnataka government initially announced an ex-gratia payment of

₹10 lakh per deceased victim, which was subsequently increased to ₹25 lakh [User Query].79
RCB also pledged ₹10 lakh plus USD 11,655 per victim [User Query].2 Ex-gratia compensation
refers to a payment made out of goodwill, without any legal obligation or admission of
liability.67 It serves as interim financial relief to the families. The increased compensation
reflects public pressure and a recognition of systemic failure, even without explicit legal
admission of liability.
Distinction Between Ex-gratia and Legal Compensation: While ex-gratia payments offer
immediate relief, they are distinct from legal compensation that can be sought through civil
suits. The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, is the primary legislation in India that allows the legal
representatives of a deceased person to claim compensation for losses occasioned by death
due to wrongful acts, neglect, or default.81 This Act enables claims by specific relatives
(spouse, parents, children) for damages proportioned to the pecuniary loss suffered due to
the death.82
Scope of Future Civil Suits: Families of the victims may pursue civil suits for negligence
under tort law. Damages in such cases can include both "special damages" (specific financial
losses like medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage) and "general damages"
(non-economic losses such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of
life).87 In certain cases involving egregious misconduct, punitive damages may also be
awarded to punish the defendant and deter similar future conduct.87 The calculation of
damages in civil cases involves assessing pecuniary loss to dependents, considering future
benefits, and balancing losses against any gains resulting from the death.82 Courts have
established principles for these calculations.82

VII. Defenses and Challenges

The legal proceedings surrounding the Bengaluru stampede are complex, with accused
parties presenting various defenses and the prosecution facing inherent challenges in proving
culpability across multiple stakeholders.
Arguments by Accused Parties

Nikhil Sosale's Defense: RCB’s Marketing Head, Nikhil Sosale, challenged his arrest,
asserting that it was "illegal, arbitrary, and not in accordance with the law." He claimed that
his arrest occurred "without any materials and even before the police had conducted a
preliminary enquiry" [User Query].2 This defense aligns with the principles laid down in Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar, which emphasize the need for police to justify arrests and for
magistrates to scrutinize the necessity of detention.54
KSCA's Defense: The Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) officials, who received
interim protection from arrest from the High Court, have argued that the FIR against them was
a "knee-jerk, politically motivated" action spurred by public outrage and state government
pressure.33 They maintain that "there is absolutely no wrong that can be attributed to the
petitioner committee or its office bearers".33 KSCA further asserted that its role was limited to
providing logistical support and renting out the stadium premises, and that crowd
management was the responsibility of RCB and the police.34 They claim that the offenses
alleged cannot be traced to any actions of their officials, even remotely.35
Police Unions' Stance: Police unions have strongly criticized the suspension of senior police
officers, including the Bengaluru Police Commissioner, labeling them "politically motivated"
and alleging that these officers have been made "scapegoats" [User Query].8 They claim that
the Chief Minister's office instructed the Commissioner to proceed with the event "regardless
of the risks," implying that police were punished for following executive orders rather than for
their own negligence.8
Challenges in Proving Culpability

Establishing Mens Rea for Corporations: Proving the requisite mens rea (guilty mind or
knowledge) for a corporate entity in criminal cases is inherently challenging. While doctrines
like the Identification Doctrine and Collective Knowledge Doctrine allow for attributing the
mental state of key individuals or the aggregated knowledge of employees to the corporation
47
, applying these in a large, multi-faceted organization with complex decision-making
processes can be difficult.89
Causation in Stampede Events: Isolating specific causal factors in chaotic crowd incidents
presents a significant challenge. Stampedes are often the result of a confluence of factors,
including overcrowding, poor planning, communication gaps, infrastructure bottlenecks, and
human behavior.4 Disentangling the precise contribution of each accused party's actions or
omissions to the ultimate tragic outcome can be complex.
Political Influence on Investigations: Concerns about political interference potentially
impacting the impartiality and outcome of the CID probe have been raised.90 Allegations of
political directives overriding police advice and the subsequent suspensions of police officers
create an environment where the integrity of the investigation could be questioned. This could
lead to an intricate dance of legal defense and public perception, where legal strategies
intertwine with public relations efforts to shift blame or mitigate public outrage. The challenge
of multi-stakeholder accountability is evident, as precisely apportioning blame becomes
difficult when multiple entities (event organizers, venue, police, government) are involved,
each with overlapping or disputed responsibilities. This case exemplifies the "passing the
buck" phenomenon, where each party attempts to deflect responsibility.
VIII. Conclusion: Lessons Learned and Path Forward
The Bengaluru stampede serves as a stark and tragic reminder of the critical importance of
stringent public safety protocols at large-scale events. The incident exposed a series of
systemic failures, including a fundamental disregard for mandatory permissions, inadequate
crowd control measures, and a concerning pattern of ignoring explicit warnings from law
enforcement. The ensuing legal proceedings, involving criminal charges of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder, investigations into corporate and individual negligence, and judicial
oversight, underscore the severe consequences of such lapses.
The legal analysis reveals that the tragedy was not merely an unforeseen accident but a
foreseeable outcome of decisions that prioritized spectacle and public relations over safety.
The announcement of "free digital passes" without robust crowd management plans directly
contributed to an unmanageable surge, bypassing established control mechanisms. This,
coupled with the strain on police resources due to multiple, overlapping events and alleged
political directives overriding professional police advice, created a perilous environment. The
strong evidence of foreseeability, particularly through explicit police warnings, significantly
strengthens the case for a higher degree of culpability under the "knowledge" element of
culpable homicide, moving beyond simple criminal negligence.
To prevent future tragedies and enhance public safety at mass gatherings in India, several
critical recommendations emerge:
1.​ Stricter Enforcement of Event Licensing and NOCs: It is imperative to ensure
mandatory compliance with all legal requirements for event permissions and No
Objection Certificates (NOCs). This includes police, fire safety, health, noise, and traffic
NOCs. Severe penalties for non-adherence should be consistently applied to deter
organizers from bypassing legal procedures.
2.​ Development and Rigorous Adherence to Comprehensive SOPs: Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) for crowd management, emergency response, and
communication must be meticulously developed and strictly implemented for all large
public events, especially those offering free entry. These SOPs should include clear
guidelines for crowd estimation, entry/exit management, medical provisions, and
contingency planning for unforeseen circumstances. The government's post-incident
announcement of new SOPs implicitly acknowledges the prior deficiencies.
3.​ Enhanced Inter-Agency Coordination: Clear lines of authority and seamless
communication must be established and maintained among event organizers, venue
owners, police, and government agencies. The professional autonomy of the police in
assessing and managing public safety risks must be respected, free from undue
political influence. This requires a robust framework for collaborative planning and
decision-making that prioritizes public safety above all else.
4.​ Clear Accountability Mechanisms: Transparent and impartial processes are essential
to assign responsibility to individuals and organizations for public safety failures,
irrespective of their stature or political affiliations. The simultaneous prosecution of
corporate entities and key individuals, alongside judicial inquiries, should aim to set
 precedents that deter future negligence and ensure that those in positions of authority
are held genuinely accountable.
5.​ Public Awareness Campaigns: Educational campaigns can play a role in informing the
public about safe behavior in large gatherings, emphasizing cooperation with
authorities and adherence to safety guidelines.
The Bengaluru stampede, much like past tragedies such as the Uphaar Cinema fire or various
Kumbh Mela stampedes 4, underscores the recurring challenges in crowd management in
India. The legal outcomes of this case will serve as a critical test for the efficacy of existing
public safety statutes and the resolve of the judicial system to enforce accountability. It
presents a crucial opportunity for legislative reforms and more stringent judicial oversight,
ultimately aiming to transform public event management from a potential catastrophe into a
truly safe and celebratory experience.

Works cited

1.​ Karnataka HC demands state submit detailed report on stampede ..., accessed
on June 8, 2025,
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/karnataka-hc-demands-state-subm
it-detailed-report-on-stampede-101749150594225.html
2.​ Tragedy in Indian Cricket Celebration: Stampede Kills 11, Sparks Legal Chaos,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.si.com/onsi/cricket/news-feed-page/tragedy-in-indian-cricket-celeb
ration-stampede-kills-11-sparks-legal-chaos-01jx39metg2q
3.​ Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka HC restrains authorities from taking action
against KSCA officials | Latest News India - Hindustan Times, accessed on June 8,
2025,
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bengaluru-chinnaswamy-stampede
-rcb-karnataka-hc-restrains-authorities-from-taking-action-against-ksca-official
s-101749207527062.html
4.​ Bengaluru Stampede 2025: Causes, NDMA Guidelines & Crowd Management
Failures, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.insightsonindia.com/2025/06/05/stampede-2/
5.​ Leadership | Crowd management is not an optional job - Hindustan Times,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/leadership-crowd-man
agement-is-not-an-optional-job-101749310177187.html
6.​ Countdown to Bengaluru stampede tragedy: State, RCB insisted on ..., accessed
on June 8, 2025,
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/countdown-to-bengaluru-stam
pede-tragedy-state-rcb-insisted-on-own-events-security-was-stretched-thin-1
0050940/
7.​ Stampede case: Despite police's 'warning' letter ... - Social News XYZ, accessed
on June 8, 2025,
https://www.socialnews.xyz/2025/06/08/stampede-case-despite-polices-warnin
 g-letter-karnataka-govt-held-rcb-felicitation-event/
8.​ 'CM's office instructed full arrangements despite risks': Section of ..., accessed on
June 8, 2025,
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/cms-office-instructed-full-arra
ngements-despite-risks-section-of-police-force-fumes-after-police-officers-su
spension-says-senior-officers-have-been-made-scapegoats/articleshow/121687
273.cms
9.​ Govt to introduce SOP for large events - The Hans India, accessed on June 8,
2025,
https://www.thehansindia.com/karnataka/govt-to-introduce-sop-for-large-event
s-977556
10.​Karnataka Government to Formulate New SOP for Public Events After Bengaluru
Stampede, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.timesnownews.com/bengaluru/karnataka-government-to-formulate
-new-sop-for-public-events-article-151798251
11.​ Bengaluru stampede: After taking over probe, CID sleuths visit Chinnaswamy
Stadium, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/bengaluru-stampede-after-ta
king-over-probe-cid-sleuths-visit-chinnaswamy-stadium/articleshow/121699994.
cms
12.​Striking a Chord: Navigating the Legalities of Live Music in Bengaluru's Dining
Scene, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://csorwvu.com/striking-a-chord-navigating-the-legalities-of-live-music-in-
bengalurus-dining-scene/
13.​Section 35 in The Karnataka Police Act, 1963. - Indian Kanoon, accessed on June
8, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110232842/
14.​Section 39 in The Karnataka Police Act, 1963. - Indian Kanoon, accessed on June
8, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20721003/
15.​Section 144 Explained: A quick guide to public gathering restrictions - India Today,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.indiatoday.in/information/story/section-144-explained-a-quick-guide
-to-public-gathering-restrictions-2501930-2024-02-16
16.​Stampede And Crowd Management - Only IAS, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://pwonlyias.com/current-affairs/stampede-and-crowd-management/
17.​STAMPEDE: A MASSACRE - Record Of Law, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://recordoflaw.in/stampede-a-massacre/
18.​Stampede Disaster Management in India - ForumIAS Community, accessed on
June 8, 2025,
https://forumias.com/blog/stampede-and-deaths-who-is-accountable/
19.​Event Licence in Bangalore | Event Management License in ..., accessed on June 8,
2025,
https://www.eventlicensing.in/event-management-license-noc-services-in-bang
alore
20.​Comprehensive Guide to Event Management Business Registration ..., accessed
on June 8, 2025,
 https://www.caclubindia.com/articles/comprehensive-guide-to-event-manageme
nt-business-registration-compliance-in-india-53242.asp
21.​Event management license in India - Taxaj, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://support.taxaj.com/portal/en/kb/articles/event-management-license-in-indi
a
22.​mid-day.com, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://mid-day.com/sports/cricket/article/bengaluru-stampede-virat-kohli-name
d-complaint-amid-probe-into-fatal-stampede-23562035
23.​Bengaluru Stampedes: Deadliest Crowd Tragedies in City's History - Deccan
Herald, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/worst-stampedes-in-b
engaluru-a-quick-glance-3572320
24.​Event Organising Services in New Delhi India, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.shsindia.co.in/event-organising.html
25.​Sports Stadium Liability: Who's Responsible for Injuries, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.rosenblumlawlv.com/sports-stadium-liability/
26.​Understanding Criminal Negligence Laws - Number Analytics, accessed on June
8, 2025,
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-criminal-negligence-law-
procedure
27.​Comprehensive analysis of negligence under Indian Tort Law - iPleaders,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://blog.ipleaders.in/comprehensive-analysis-of-negligence-under-indian-tor
t-law/
28.​foreseeability+and+proximity | Indian Case Law - CaseMine, accessed on June 8,
2025, https://www.casemine.com/search/in/foreseeability%2Band%2Bproximity
29.​reasonable+foreseeability | Indian Case Law - CaseMine, accessed on June 8,
2025, https://www.casemine.com/search/in/reasonable%2Bforeseeability
30.​Roles and Responsibilities of an Event Manager - Niem Blog, accessed on June 8,
2025,
https://www.niemindia.com/blog/roles-and-responsibilities-of-an-event-manager
/
31.​www.bimakavach.com, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.bimakavach.com/blog/general-liability-insurance-for-an-event-what
-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=Without%20Commercial%20General%20Liability%
20Insurance,serious%20financial%20and%20legal%20consequences.
32.​General Liability Insurance for an Event: What You Need to Know - Blog |
BimaKavach, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.bimakavach.com/blog/general-liability-insurance-for-an-event-what
-you-need-to-know/
33.​K'taka HC relief for state cricket body officials in stampede case ..., accessed on
June 8, 2025,
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ktaka-hc-relief-for-state-cricket-bo
dy-officials-in-stampede-case-101749235827872.html
34.​Bengaluru Stampede Case: KSCA Secretary, Treasurer Resign Citing Moral
 Responsibility; Check Their Statement - Zee News, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://zeenews.india.com/cricket/bengaluru-stampede-case-ksca-secretary-tre
asurer-resign-citing-moral-responsibility-check-their-statement-2912546.html
35.​Chinnaswamy Stampede: Karnataka HC Grants Interim Relief to KSCA Officials,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/karnataka-high-court-
grants-protection-from-arrest-to-ksca-officials-3574131
36.​Sports Stadium and Injuries From Negligent Security? - Knowles Law Firm,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.knowleslawfirm.com/can-sports-stadium-liable-injuries-caused-neg
ligent-security/
37.​What is Event Insurance Policy? What is Included in It? - Blog - BimaKavach,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://bimakavach.com/blog/what-is-event-insurance-policy-what-is-included-i
n-it/
38.​Bengaluru stampede: Top cop's warning letter to Karnataka govt before RCB
event puts administration in a tight spot - The Economic Times, accessed on June
8, 2025,
https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/bengaluru-stampede-top-cop
s-warning-letter-to-karnataka-govt-before-rcb-event-puts-administration-in-a-
tight-spot/articleshow/121703594.cms
39.​Supreme Court Alters Conviction to Section 304-II IPC - Drishti Judiciary,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/supreme-court-alters-conviction
-to-section-304-ii-ipc
40.​Bengaluru stampede: FIR says organisers ignored crowd warnings ..., accessed on
June 8, 2025,
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/karnataka/story/bengaluru-stampede-fir-police-w
arned-organisers-stampede-still-happened-2736357-2025-06-05
41.​Accountability Must Be Fixed on Chinnaswamy Stadium Stampede - TaxGuru,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/accountability-fixed-chinnaswamy-stadium-sta
mpede.html
42.​IPC Section 304 - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder -
Devgan.in, accessed on June 8, 2025, https://devgan.in/ipc/section/304/
43.​www.indiacode.nic.in, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_15
23266765688&orderno=341#:~:text=%5B304A.-,Causing%20death%20by%20neg
ligence.,fine%2C%20or%20with%20both.%5D
44.​Section 304A - India Code, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_15
23266765688&orderno=341
45.​What Is Criminal Negligence? Definition, Examples, Legal Consequences &
Penalties, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://teamjustice.com/criminal-negligence-definition-examples-penalties/
46.​Bengaluru stampede: Case against RCB, state cricket body for criminal
negligence, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/karnataka/story/case-filed-against-rcb-karnataka-
cricket-body-for-criminal-negligence-after-bengaluru-stampede-kills-11-273629
7-2025-06-05
47.​Corporate Criminal Liability in India - Agrud Partners, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://agrudpartners.com/corporate-criminal-liability-in-india/
48.​The Burden of the Employer | A Look at Company Liabilities for ..., accessed on
June 8, 2025,
https://treelife.in/legal/burden-of-the-employer-a-look-at-company-liabilities-for
-employee/
49.​Karnataka HC grants interim relief to KSCA officials in Bengaluru stampede case,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/litigation/karnataka-high-court
-grants-relief-to-ksca-officials-amid-bengaluru-stampede-fallout/121682321
50.​Bengaluru stampede: Police complaint filed against Virat Kohli - The Financial
Express, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/bengaluru-stampede-virat-kohli-fa
ces-police-complaint-from-activist-rcb-officials-in-judicial-custody/3871563/
51.​High Court bars coercive steps against Karnataka cricket body in stampede case,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/law-news/story/no-coercive-steps-against-state-
cricket-body-for-now-karnataka-high-court-day-after-stampede-case-filed-273
6818-2025-06-06
52.​Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka HC restrains police from taking coercive action
against KSCA officials - The Economic Times, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://m.economictimes.com/news/bengaluru-news/bengaluru-stampede-karna
taka-hc-restrains-police-from-taking-coercive-action-against-ksca-officials/arti
cleshow/121675077.cms
53.​Karnataka HC grants interim relief to KSCA officials in Bengaluru stampede case -
ET LegalWorld - Economic Times Legal, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/litigation/karnataka-high-c
ourt-grants-relief-to-ksca-officials-amid-bengaluru-stampede-fallout/121682321
54.​Arrest - Drishti Judiciary, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita
-&-code-of-criminal-procedure/arrest
55.​Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) - law Jurist, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://lawjurist.com/index.php/2024/12/27/arnesh-kumar-v-state-of-bihar-2014/
56.​Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) - iPleaders, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://blog.ipleaders.in/arnesh-kumar-vs-state-of-bihar-2014/
57.​Karnataka Cricket Body Accepts Resignations Of Top Officials. Says This On
Managing Committee - NDTV Sports, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/karnataka-cricket-body-accepts-resignations-of-
top-officials-says-this-on-managing-committee-8612687
58.​Virat Kohli In Trouble? Police Complaint Filed Against RCB Star Over Bengaluru
 Stampede - Report | Cricket News - NDTV Sports, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/virat-kohli-in-trouble-police-complaint-filed-agai
nst-rcb-star-over-bengaluru-stampede-report-8605992
59.​Bengaluru stampede: What police said about complaint against Virat Kohli,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bengaluru-stampede-what-police-s
aid-about-complaint-against-virat-kohli-101749268380979.html
60.​Celebrity Liability For The Endorsement Of Defective Products - S.P.A. Ajibade &
Co, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://spaajibade.com/celebrity-liability-for-the-endorsement-of-defective-prod
ucts/
61.​Celebrity endorsements in medicine: who should be held liable? - PMC, accessed
on June 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4970384/
62.​All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. - High Court of Tripura,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://thc.nic.in/Central%20Governmental%20Rules/All%20India%20Services%2
0(Discipline%20and%20Appeal)%20Rules,%201969.pdf
63.​The All India Services (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1969 | Rule 03 - Referencer,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.referencer.in/CS_Regulations/AIS(DA)Rules1969/Rule_03.aspx
64.​Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 Rule 5 (5) -
CourtKutchehry, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?s_acts=Karnat
aka%20State%20Police%20(Disciplinary%20Proceedings)%20Rules,%201965§ion
_art=rule&s_article_val=5%20(5)
65.​Sri Kishore Kumar B.K vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025 - Indian Kanoon,
accessed on June 8, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/171414059/
66.​Vicarious Liability of the State - Drishti Judiciary, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-torts/vicarious-liability-of-the-s
tate
67.​Establishing the Right to Ad Hoc Compensation for Negligent Deaths: Smt.
Kalawati & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another - CaseMine, accessed
on June 8, 2025,
https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/establishing-the-right-to-ad-hoc-co
mpensation-for-negligent-deaths:-smt.-kalawati-&-others-v.-state-of-himachal-
pradesh-&-another/view
68.​Your Rights In Cases Of Police Misconduct | Advocate J.S. Rohilla, accessed on
June 8, 2025, https://jsrohilla.in/your-rights-in-cases-of-police-misconduct/
69.​Maharashtra's Custodial Death Compensation Policy Risks Normalising Rather
Than Preventing Them - The Wire, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://m.thewire.in/article/law/maharashtra-custodial-death-compensation-polic
y-prevention-liability-negligence?utm=authorpage
70.​The Commissions Of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Indian Kanoon, accessed on June 8,
2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1788561/
71.​law commission - of india, accessed on June 8, 2025,
 https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/
2022/08/2022080537.pdf
72.​THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952 ______ ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
- India Code, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1508/1/AAA1952___60.pdf
73.​the commissions of inquiry act, 1952 act no 60 of 1952, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-02/A1952_27022023.pdf
74.​Section 3(1)-Constitutional validity | Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 -
AdvocateKhoj, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/commissionsofinquiryact/19.ph
p?Title=Commissions%20of%20Inquiry%20Act,%201952&STitle=Section%203(1)-
Constitutional%20validity
75.​Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Vajiram & Ravi, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/public-interest-litigation/
76.​Public Interest Litigation - iPleaders, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://blog.ipleaders.in/public-interest-litigation-3/
77.​Public Interest Litigation in India: Meaning, Constitutional Basis, & Landmark
Cases, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://thelegalschool.in/blog/public-interest-litigation-in-india
78.​What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and What is Its Importance? - ClearTax,
accessed on June 8, 2025, https://cleartax.in/s/public-interest-litigation
79.​Stampede victims' families to get Rs 25 lakh: Karnataka increases aid amount -
India Today, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/karnataka-increases-compensation-for-sta
mpede-victims-from-rs-10-lakh-to-rs-25-lakh-2737390-2025-06-07
80.​Bengaluru Stampede: Compensation For Victims' Families Raised To Rs 25 lakh -
YouTube, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhwO_wB5Hn8
81.​Law of Torts - Chapter 24 - Student Manupatra, accessed on June 8, 2025,
http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Law-of-Torts/chapter24.htm
82.​Death in Relation to Tort - Drishti Judiciary, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/ttp-torts/death-in-relation-to-tort
83.​The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - KanoonGPT, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://kanoongpt.in/bare-acts/the-fatal-accidents-act-1855
84.​Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - High Court of Tripura, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://thc.nic.in/Central%20Governmental%20Acts/Fatal%20Accidents%20Act,
%201855.pdf
85.​FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT, 1855 - Telangana Transport, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.transport.telangana.gov.in/html/pdf/THE_FATAL_ACCIDENT_ACT-185
5.pdf
86.​THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT, 1855 ______ ______ - India Code, accessed on June 8,
2025, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2276/1/A1855-13.pdf
87.​How are damages calculated in public civil law cases? - Law4u, accessed on June
8, 2025,
https://law4u.in/answer/4364/How-are-damages-calculated-in-public-civil-law-c
 ases
88.​Doctrine of Damages in India: A Comprehensive Legal Analysis of Recent Trends,
accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/04/08/doctrine-of-damages-in-india-
a-comprehensive-legal-analysis-of-recent-trends/
89.​Can Companies Commit Homicide: Navigating Corporate Criminal Liability in
Cases of Homicide - The Criminal Law Blog, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2024/01/31/can-companies-commit
-homicide-navigating-corporate-criminal-liability-in-cases-of-homicide/
90.​Police Accountability in India - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, accessed
on June 8, 2025,
https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/police_accountability_in
_india.pdf
91.​Lawyers at the Police Station: Protection of the Accused or Interference in the
Investigation Process? - SCC Online, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/31/lawyers-at-the-police-station-
protection-of-the-accused-or-interference-in-the-investigation-process/
92.​reportable - Supreme Court of India, accessed on June 8, 2025,
https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/35486.pdf