Supreme Court Declines to Lay Down National Stampede SOPs, Asks Petitioner to Approach Centre

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi examined the plea, which highlighted what the petitioner described as “preventable deaths” occurring due to stampedes across India.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate G Priyadharshni along with AoR Rahul Shyam Bhandari submitted that nearly 4,000 people have lost their lives in stampede-related incidents over the last 20 years. The absence of a national policy, statutory standard operating procedures (SOPs), or even a legal definition of the term “stampede” was cited as a key reason for recurring tragedies.

The CJI, however, expressed reservations about the feasibility of judicially enforceable directions. “Can we issue this kind of directions? Is it possible to comply with such directions?” the Bench asked, cautioning against passing orders that could become “unmanageable” on the ground.

The Court illustrated the difficulty by referring to political rallies. While authorities can regulate protests by designating specific venues and ensuring that public life is not disrupted, the Bench questioned whether courts could realistically cap attendance based on ground capacity. “If a ground can accommodate 10,000 people and 50,000 turn up, what do you do?” the CJI asked.

In response, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that the plea did not seek rigid caps on attendance but urged the Court to lay down minimum benchmarks through SOPs, pointing out that while some States like Tamil Nadu have guidelines for political rallies, others do not.

The Bench remained unconvinced, noting the practical difficulty of restricting people’s participation in public events. At the same time, the CJI acknowledged that certain regulatory measures, such as designated protest spaces and crowd regulation to protect senior citizens, schoolchildren and patients, are permissible.

The order records that the petition sought directions to the Union of India and the Election Commission of India for formulation of mandatory crowd control guidelines, a centralised digital platform to regulate political rallies nationwide, and a National Crowd Management and Safety Code incorporating real-time surveillance, risk audits and use of modern technology at major public places.

Ultimately, the Court held that the reliefs sought were “essentially for formulation of a policy”, an area better suited to domain experts and law enforcement agencies rather than judicial intervention. The Bench permitted the petitioner to pursue representations before the Union government and to submit the writ petition in the form of a representation to the Election Commission of India.

Leaving the matter to the “competent authorities”, the Supreme Court declined to issue directions, while allowing the authorities to consider the suggestions and take appropriate action if deemed necessary.

The petitioner, a former MLA, Union Cabinet Minister, Rajya Sabha MP and ex-Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture, states that his long public life and direct exposure to the suffering of victims prompted the plea. He claims to have personally witnessed the aftermath of the incidents, including deaths caused by suffocation, lack of crowd control, absence of medical facilities, signages, trained marshals and police guidance.

The petition highlights how unregulated rallies and roadshows routinely disrupt civic life, blocking ambulances, delaying patients, preventing students from reaching examination centres, and causing commuters to miss flights and trains. It argues that public roads, meant solely for transportation, are routinely “hijacked” for unorganised political events, with no accountability for the resulting inconvenience and risks to the general public.

Among the key prayers, the PIL seeks formulation of a National Crowd Management and Safety Code, mandatory pre-event registration and safety certification, strict venue audits, prohibition of rallies on roads narrower than four lanes, and restriction of events to designated grounds and maidans. It also seeks enhanced supervisory powers for the Election Commission of India in pre-election and post-election periods, including authority to cancel unsafe rallies and penalise violators.