- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 20160 OF 2025 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT UB TOWERS, NO.24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001 REP. HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. TONY PHILIP. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADV.) AND: 1. MR.VIKASH KUMAR VIKASH S/O MR. PRABHU NARAYAN RAJAK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS INSPECTOR GENERAL AND ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE WEST DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560001. 3. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINSITRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR) UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI DHANUSH MENON, ADV. FOR R1 SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A). SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRAIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU, IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. O.A. NO.170/00261/2025 (ANNEXURE-A), IN SO FAR AS IT CONTAINS FINDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CLARIFY THAT THE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU, IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN OA NO. 170/00261/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) IS NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, a third party is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 01.07.2025 in O.A.No.170/00261/2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘CAT’) praying to clarify that insofar as the Order containing the findings against the petitioner, that the impugned order is not binding on the petitioner. 2. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Sandesh J. Chouta for Sri.Raghuram Cadambi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned senior counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa for Sri.Dhanush Menon, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with Sri.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 3. Learned senior counsel Sri.Sandesh J. Chouta would submit that the petitioner herein was not a party to O.A.No.170/00261/2025, filed by respondent No.1 before the CAT, questioning the order dated 05.06.2025, keeping him under suspension based on the incident of stampede that took place on 04.06.2025 during the victory celebration of RCB in Chinnaswamy Stadium, where 11 people died and more than 50 people were injured. Learned senior counsel would submit that while considering the order of suspension of respondent No.1, the CAT in the impugned order has made observations which are irrelevant, unjustifiable and against the interest of the petitioner herein. 4. Learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner herein is a Private Limited Company aided in organizing various events in connection with the RCB/IPL as an Event Management Agency. Learned senior counsel would submit that the remarks made against the petitioner casts serious aspersions which would have serious - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 consequences on the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would further submit that various judicial and criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner and others in respect of the stampede which took place on 04.06.2025 and the observations made by the CAT would adversely affect the petitioner in all other proceedings. It is contended that no adverse observations could be made in the absence of the party in the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner had no opportunity whatsoever to rebut the allegations or observations made by the CAT in the course of its order, impugned herein. 5. Learned senior counsel in support of his contentions, places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DR.DILIP KUMAR DEKA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER1. Thus, learned senior counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition to the extent prayed in the writ petition. 1 (1996) 6 SCC 234 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa as well as learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob would contend that the observations made in the impugned order would have no bearing on any other proceedings and they would submit that the observations made against the petitioner is only for the purpose of deciding the order of suspension of respondent No.1 and not for any other purpose. Further, learned senior counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa for respondent No.1 would submit that those observations made by the CAT were necessary to answer the contentions raised by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State. Therefore, he submits that no fault could be found with the CAT in making those observations. Thus, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are inclined to grant the prayer sought by the petitioner for the following reasons: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings before the CAT in O.A.NO.170/00261/2025 wherein the respondent No.1 questioned the order of keeping him under suspension by respondent No.2 under order dated 05.06.2025. The preamble portion of the order of suspension reads as follows: “Preamble: As per the GO issued by Home Department read above, the gist of unfortunate incident is explained below:- On 04.06.2025. there was stampede during the victory celebrations of RCB in Chinnaswamy Stadium. Bengaluru. Eleven (11) people have died and more than 50 people have Magistrate. Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru for giving his report within 15 days. Pending been injured. A Magisterial enquiry has been ordered under Deputy Commissioner & District enquiry it is found that there has been a substantial dereliction of duty by the following officers: 1. Sri. B. Dayananda, IPS, Additional Director General & Commissioner of Police. Bengaluru City, Bengaluru. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 2. Sri. Vikash Kumar Vikash, IPS. Inspector General & Additional Commissioner of Police. West, Bengaluru City. 3. Sri. Shekar H Tekkannavar. IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police. Central Division. Bengaluru City. 4. Sri C Balakrishna, Asst commissioner of Police, Cubbon Park. Bengaluru. 5. Sri A K Girish. Police Inspector, Cubbon Park Police Station. Bengaluru The CEO of RCB had intimated Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City on 03/06/2025 about holding the victory parade and celebrations on 04th of June 2025. However, the office of Police Commissioner failed to give written reply to the Organizers, rejecting the permission on the grounds of lack of time to prepare for such a huge event. The RCB and the Cricket Association went ahead to tweet about the celebrations and inviting the fans to Chinnaswamy stadium without going through the usual practice of issue of tickets or passes. Despite, the knowledge of these developments and expectation of huge turnout of cricket fans by the Police, steps were not taken to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 either have the event organized systematically at the stadium or give adequate information to the public to take necessary precautions for their safety or provide additional Police force for appropriate crowd management. Further, the above situation was not discussed with the higher ups for taking necessary guidance and advice in the matter. As a result, the situation went out of control and brought a lot of misery, loss of precious life and embarrassment to the Government. In view of the above, the conduct of the above mentioned IPS Officers is in gross violation of AIS (Conduct) Rules and that of the ACP and PI is in gross violation of Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965. Hence, the following order.” 8. The incident based on which the respondent No.1 was kept under suspension was the incident of stampede during the victory celebration of RCB in Chinnaswamy Stadium on 04.06.2025, where 11 people died and more than 50 people were injured. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 9. As averred by the petitioner, the petitioner is organizing various events in connection with the RCB/IPL as an Event Management Agency based in Bengaluru. 10. It is settled position of law that no adverse observation/s which are irrelevant or unjustifiable could be made by the Court against any person who is not a party to the proceedings. If the Court or Tribunal during the course of hearing is of the opinion that such observations are necessary while passing the order, it ought to provide an opportunity to such person or individual. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DR.RAGHUBIR SARAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER2 was considering the expunction of remarks from the judgment or order of Sub-ordinate Court while dealing with an appeal. At paragraphs 18, 27 and 28, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows: 2 AIR 1964 SC 1 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 “18. Observations made by a subordinate court in its judgment or order may very seriously affect, in a given case, only a party thereto in which event he can, if the observations are irrelevant or unjustifiable, seek redress by appeal or revision, whichever of these remedies is available to him at law. But what if a stranger to the proceeding or a lawyer engaged in the case is affected by the court's remarks of similar character? Has he no remedy? Must he suffer the consequences of irrelevant or unjustifiable remarks of a court though if similar remarks were made against a party to the proceeding that party is entitled to seek redress? It would be a travesty of justice if an injured stranger to a proceeding should have to suffer unheard as a result of unjustifiable and harmful observations made by a court against him. The case of an injured stranger would be of a kind in which redress would he possible only if some court possesses such power and can exercise it to secure the ends of justice. The question is whether the highest court in a State has and must always be deemed to have had such power. The further question is whether the exercise of such power would involve alteration of a judgment or order and if so whether that must be deemed to have been permitted by the Code. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 27. The power to expunge remarks is no doubt an extraordinary power but nevertheless it does exist for redressing a kind of grievance for which the statute provides no remedy in express terms. The fact that the statute recognises that the High Courts are not confined to the exercise of powers expressly conferred by it and may continue to exercise their inherent powers makes three things clear. One that extraordinary situations may call for the exercise of extraordinary powers. Second, that the High Courts have inherent power to secure the ends of justice. Third, that the express provisions of the Code do not affect that power. The precise powers, which inhere in the High Court are deliberately not defined by Section 561-A for good reason. It is obviously not possible to attempt to define the variety of circumstances which will call for their exercise. No doubt, this section confers no new power but it does recognise the general power to do that which is necessary “to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”. But then, the statute does not say that the inherent power recognised is only such as has been exercised in the past either. What it says is that the High Courts always had such inherent power and that this power has not been taken away. Whenever in a - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 criminal matter a question arises for consideration whether in particular circumstances the High Court has power to make a particular kind of order in the absence of express provision in the Code or other statute the test to be applied would be whether it is necessary to do so to give effect to an order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 28. When the question arises before the High Court in any specific case whether to resort to such undefined power it is essential for it to exercise great caution and circumspection. Thus when it is moved by an aggrieved party to expunge any passage from the order or judgment of a subordinate court it must be fully satisfied that the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable, that its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the person to whom it refers and that its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order.” 12. In DR.DILIP KUMAR DEKA AND ANOTHER (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the question of expunction of certain remarks made by the High Court while disposing of a criminal revision petition - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 and while answering the same, at paragraphs 6 and 7, held as follows: “6. The tests to be applied while dealing with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before a court of law in cases to be decided by it were succinctly laid down by this Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim [AIR 1964 SC 703 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 549 : (1964) 2 SCR 363] . Those tests are: (a) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. The above tests have been quoted with approval and applied by this Court in its subsequent judgments in Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha [(1972) 1 SCC 181 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 118 : AIR 1972 SC 1140] , R.K.Lakshmanan v. A.K.Srinivasan [(197) 2 SCC 466 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 654 : AIR 1975 SC 1741] - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 and Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar [(1986) 2 SCC 569 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 196 : AIR 1986 SC 819]. 7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition, to defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious aspersion on the appellants affecting their character and reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also. Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice.” 13. From a reading of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that while making any observations or remarks, the Court or Tribunal has to see whether that party is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself. No Court or Tribunal could make any adverse observations or remark against a party who is not before the Court. The - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 observations made without giving an opportunity of being heard should be such that it shall not affect the person. 14. In the instant case, when the other proceedings are pending against the petitioner herein, the Tribunal vide the impugned Order has proceeded to pass the following observations: “25. Therefore, it appears that without obtaining the permission from the Police or without the consent of concerned Police Officers, the franchise of RCB placed the information to the public on social media platforms. The franchise of RCB unilaterally and without consultation with the city Police, posted a photo at 7:01 a.m. on the official handle of RCB on instagram informing that there is free entry for people and inviting the public to participate in the victory parade which would commence at Vidhana Soudha and conclude at Chinnaswamy Stadium. The second post on instagram was made at 8 a.m. reiterating the information. Subsequently, on 04.06.2025 at 8:55 a.m. the RCB shared the video clip of Virat Kohli on RCB's official handle in which it was mikasha sunejamikashaCAT dministrativeTrib Ad SribuA 24 OA.No.170/00261/2025/CAT/BANGALORE stated - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 that the team intends to celebrate this victory with the people of Bengaluru city and RCB fans on 04.06.2025 after the team returned to Bengaluru. Thereafter, RCB made one more post at 3:14 p.m. on 04.06.2025 announcing a victory parade to be held from Vidhana Soudha to Chinnaswamy Stadium from 5 to 6 p.m. and victory parade would be followed by celebrations at Chinnaswamy Stadium. In this post it was mentioned that free passes (limited entry) were available on shop.royalchallengers.com. Until this point there had been no information regarding the disbursement of passes, implying that the event was open to all according to RCB post. The first post received 16 lakh views and the second post received 4.26 lakh views and the third post received 7.6 lakh views while the fourth post received 17 lakh views. The aforesaid action of the RCB led the public gathering of immense proportion exceeding three lakh individuals. 26. As a result of aforesaid media post of RCB, the crowd gathered near the Stadium about three lakhs and around the Chinnaswamy Stadium a significant number of people gathered upon the roads and other places approximately 14 kms. area. The capacity of the Stadium was 35 thousand while around 3 lakh people gathered around the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 stadium. At that moment it was not possible for the Police to make the arrangements. 27. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the RCB is responsible for the gathering of about three to five lakh people. The RCB did not take the appropriate permission or consent from the Police. Suddenly, they posted on social media platforms and as a result of aforesaid information the public were gathered. Because of shortage of time on 04.06.2026, the Police was unable to do the appropriate arrangements. Sufficient time was not given to the Police. The public was available in the whole night intervening 3rd to 4th June, 2025 on the streets of Bengaluru and Police was doing the management of aforesaid public. Another function was also organised by the State Government in the campus of the "Vidhana Soudha". Police was also deputed at that place. Suddenly, the RCB created the aforesaid type of nuisance without any prior permission. It cannot expected from the Police that within a short time of about 12 hours the Police will make all arrangements required in the Police Act or in the other rules, etc. Police personnel are also human beings. They are neither "God"(Bhagwan) nor Magician and also not having the magic powers like "Alladdin ka Chirag" which was able to fulfil any wish only by rubbing a finger To control the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31543-DB WP No. 20160 of 2025 aforesaid type of gathering and for making the proper arrangements sufficient time should be given to the Police. But neither the information was given to the Police for making the arrangements nor the permission was applied or granted by the Police. …………………….” 15. The above extracted portion of the order would definitely affect or be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, the observations made by the CAT extracted above stands expunged. 16. To the above extent, writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1