6. Judicial Oversight on Crowd Management: Karnataka HC Directive (2026)

In a significant move toward public safety, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to enforce a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for crowd control. This interim measure will remain in effect until the formal enactment of the Karnataka Crowd Control (Managing Crowd at Events and Place of Gathering) Bill, 2025, ensuring that large-scale events do not repeat the tragedies of the past. Key Highlights of the High Court Directive • Interim Enforcement: The Court ordered that the revised SOP, which incorporates expert suggestions, must be strictly followed for all mass gatherings until the state legislature passes the pending Bill. • Origin of Action: The directive follows a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated after a tragic stampede outside the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4, 2025, which resulted in 11 fatalities during IPL celebrations. • Amicus Curiae Role: Senior Advocate S. Susheela, acting as amicus curiae, pointed out that the current SOP offers more robust safety measures than the draft Bill, prompting the Court to ask the legislature to bridge these gaps. • Mandatory Application & NOCs: Under the SOP, organizers of events expecting over 1,000 people must apply via a digital portal and obtain mandatory No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) from fire, health, and traffic departments. • Police Accountability: The SOP mandates annual refresher courses for police personnel up to the rank of Sub-Inspector, focusing on de-escalation tactics and simulation-based risk assessments. • Social Media Regulation: Organizers are held responsible for monitoring and clarifying misinformation on social media that could trigger spontaneous overcrowding or panic. Definitions of Key Terms • Amicus Curiae: A \'friend of the court\'; a neutral professional advisor appointed by the judge to assist in cases involving complex public interest issues. • Suo Motu Cognizance: A Latin term meaning \'on its own motion,\' where a court takes up a case without a formal petition from an aggrieved party. • Crowd Crush/Stampede: A phenomenon where the density of a crowd becomes so high that individuals are unable to move, leading to respiratory failure or physical injury. • Indemnity Bond: A legal guarantee (set at 1 crore in the proposed Bill) where organizers agree to compensate for any loss of life or property damage during the event. Constitutional and Legal Provisions • Article 21: Interpreted by the Court as the \'Right to Life\' which necessitates the State to ensure public safety and prevent avoidable disasters. • Article 226: Empowers the High Court to issue directions or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. • Disaster Management Act, 2005: Provides the overarching legal framework for managing man-made disasters; the Court clarified that the SOP does not override this Act. • Seventh Schedule (List II, Entry 1): \'Public Order\' is a State subject, providing the Karnataka government the legislative competence to draft the Crowd Control Bill. Additional Important Key Points • Tiered Licensing: Authority for permission varies by crowd size: Station House Officer (<7,000), DySP (7,000–50,000), and Commissioner/SP (>50,000). • Strict Evacuation Norms: The SOP mandates minimum evacuation corridors of 1.5–2 meters and the positioning of medical \'Field Hospitals\' for gatherings exceeding 50,000 people. • Liability Clauses: The proposed Bill suggests absolute liability for organizers, making them responsible for damages regardless of proven negligence—a point currently under legislative scrutiny. Conclusion and UPSC Relevance The Karnataka High Court’s intervention underscores a transition from \'reactive policing\' to \'preventive crowd management.\' By prioritizing an SOP over a potentially weaker draft Bill, the judiciary has emphasized that administrative procedures must be scientifically grounded. For the UPSC Civil Services Exam, this is a vital case study for GS Paper II (Judiciary and Governance) and GS Paper III (Disaster Management). It highlights the importance of \'Judicial Activism\' in protecting citizens and the necessity of \'Crowd Management\' as a core component of internal security and urban governance.