CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF VIPS IN STAMPEDE DEATHS : A Critical Evaluation

Criminal Liability of VIPs in Stampede Deaths: A Critical Evaluation

Introduction

Stampedes have become a recurring tragedy in India, whether during religious festivals, political rallies, or film-related fan gatherings. The recent Karur, Tamil Nadu stampede (September 2025), which claimed 36 lives, has reignited the debate: Can a VIP or celebrity whose presence attracts the crowd be held criminally liable?

Similar controversies arose earlier—when Actor Allu Arjun was reportedly arrested after a stampede at a fan event, whereas Virat Kohli was not arrested after the Bangalore Stadium stampede. Political parties like the CPI(M) have demanded the arrest of actor Vijay in the Karur case. The law, however, demands a clear analysis of criminal liability, not political scapegoating.

The Legal Framework  of

Relevant Penal Provisions : 

Section 304A IPC and section 106 BNS  punishes whoever causes death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

The prosecution must prove:

(i) A duty of care owed to victims,

(ii) Breach of that duty,

(iii) Direct causal link between breach and deaths.

Section 336–338 IPC / Sections 125–127 BNS – Endangering life and personal safety by negligent acts.

Section 120B IPC / Section 61 BNS – Criminal conspiracy (if organizers knowingly planned unsafe gatherings).

Section 269–270 IPC / Sections 176–177 BNS – Negligent or malignant acts likely to spread danger to human life.

Possible Accusations against a VIP

Negligence in planning – If the VIP or their team invited huge crowds without ensuring NDMA safety norms.

Failure to coordinate with police/authorities – If event permission conditions were violated.

Incitement or provocation – If the VIP’s behavior caused sudden panic (e.g., asking fans to rush forward).

Judicial Precedents : 

Sushil Ansal v. State (Uphaar Cinema Case, (2017) 8 SCC 370)

The Supreme Court upheld liability for deaths caused by negligence in a public event.

Organizers who failed to provide adequate exits and safety measures were convicted under Section 304A IPC.

This Liability is based on duty of care owed to the public.

Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651

Though not about stampedes, the Court stressed that professionals/organizers owe a duty of care, and negligence arises when precautions ordinarily expected are not taken.

Kerala High Court  Decision– The Puttingal Temple Fireworks Disaster Case (2016)

After 110 deaths in Kollam, the Kerala High Court held temple officials, contractors, and district authorities liable for permitting an unregulated crowd and fireworks.

This Iiability is shared between organizers and authorities, not merely symbolic figures.

Ram Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. (2015 All HC)

The Allahabad High Court held that stampede liability cannot automatically be fixed on the chief guest or VIP, unless it is shown that their act directly caused panic or they ignored clear safety warnings.

VIP Liability: Key Questions

Were fans compelled? – Legally, voluntary attendance does not absolve organizers of responsibility. Even if devotees or fans come willingly, once a mass gathering is foreseeable, duty of care arises.

Is the VIP always criminally liable? – No. A star’s mere popularity is not a crime. The organizers, police, and district administration usually bear primary liability.

When does VIP liability arise?

1. If the VIP personally encouraged unsafe crowding.

2. If the VIP’s team organized the event without permissions.

3. If safety guidelines (NDMA, police conditions) were ignored at the VIP’s instance.

Discrimination in Treatment – Why Allu Arjun was arrested , and  Virat Kohli was set free ?

Allu Arjun’s arrest reportedly followed allegations that the event was unauthorized and poorly managed by his fan club, directly linked to his publicity team.

Virat Kohli’s case involved an officially sanctioned cricket stadium with police management—thus, liability shifted to stadium authorities, not to the player.

Hence, same offence, but different factual matrix. Law does not treat celebrities differently; it is the degree of control over event management that decides liability.

NDMA Guidelines and Duty of Care :

The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has issued detailed guidelines on crowd safety. It has to be strictly complicd with.

Prior risk assessment, crowd flow mapping, barricading, fire safety, CCTV monitoring, medical aid, and separate VIP access are the essential requirements.

If organizers (including VIP teams) ignore these, they can be charged with negligence.

Courts have repeatedly stressed (e.g., in Uphaar case, Puttingal case) that failure to follow safety guidelines , will amount to criminal negligence.

Critical Evaluation : 

Criminal law requires proximate cause – Popularity alone cannot constitute liability. A film star cannot be punished merely because people love him.

But negligence is punishable – If the star’s team or sponsoring party failed to obtain permission or ignored crowd safety norms, criminal liability under 304A IPC or  106 BNS may apply.

Political misuse of arrests : – Demands for arrest of VIPs like Vijay often stem from political rivalries, and not from legal principles.

Systemic failure : – 

Stampedes in India largely result from structural deficiencies, poor policing, and lack of NDMA enforcements . Fixing liability solely on VIPs is legally weak and diverts focus from systemic reform.

Conclusion :

The criminal liability of VIPs in stampede deaths depends on facts, and not  on emotions, unless it is proven that:

i) the VIP or their team organized the event negligently,

ii) failed to comply with statutory safety guidelines, and

iii) their direct act or omission caused deaths,

Then only they cannot be convicted under Sections 304A, 336–338 IPC (Sections 106, 125–127 BNS).

The Uphaar Cinema case and the Puttingal fireworks disaster show that courts fix liability on organizers, managers, and authorities who neglect safety—not merely on high-profile figures whose presence attracts crowds.

Thus, in the Karur stampede, criminal liability, if any, would rest on event organizers, fan clubs, and local authorities, not merely on actor Vijay, unless concrete evidence of his negligence emerges.

Stampedes are a public safety governance failure, not merely a celebrity crime. Political targeting of VIPs only undermines serious legal reform needed in crowd management.