OPINION | Supreme Court’s Karur Judgement: Questions of jurisdiction, neutrality and federal trust

Amidst these procedural and jurisdictional complexities, two important issues emerged — one that drew significant attention, and another that went largely unnoticed. In its interim order, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria not only transferred the Karur stampede probe to the CBI but also set up a three-member Supervisory Committee to oversee the investigation.

The committee, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi, includes two senior IPS officers not below the rank of Inspector General, permitted to be from the Tamil Nadu cadre but not natives of the state. While the decision to hand over the probe to the CBI became a major talking point, an equally intriguing aspect was the court’s stipulation barring native officers from the supervisory role. This condition, viewed by many as creating a “cadre within a cadre,” has sparked debate over its implications with respect to the All-India Service. 

Reason remains a mystery

The Court offered no reasoning for this unusual directive. The distinction it draws between Tamil Nadu cadre native officers and non-native officers implicitly suggests that the latter are somehow more neutral or impartial. Such an assumption not only undermines the professionalism and integrity of the Tamil Nadu Police but also strikes at the spirit of the Indian Police Service — a constitutional All-India Service established under Article 312 to ensure uniform standards of competence, integrity, and impartiality across the nation.

Is the police force allowed to defend itself publicly against allegations?

Coming to the first issue of transferring the case to the CBI. The Court referred to press briefings by senior State officials as attempts to shield subordinates, raising doubts about the neutrality of the ongoing probe. However, such an interpretation effectively places an undue restraint on officials performing their duty to clarify facts in the face of serious and widely circulated allegations — including those made by Vijay and his supporters, suggesting a conspiracy.

Sharing verified information or video evidence to counter misinformation should not, by itself, be seen as compromising investigative independence. Also, the court invoked State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), a judgment that explicitly cautioned against ordering CBI probes as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police.

Jurisprudence cautions against transferring probes to CBI without compelling reason

In January 2024, a Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had said that while it does indeed have the ability to transfer a probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or even form a Special Investigation Team (SIT), such a power should only be exercised sparingly and in extraordinary situations. The remarks were made in a plea that sought the transfer of the investigation into Hindenburg Research’s allegations against the Adani group from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to the CBI, or to constitute an SIT.

In November 2024, the Supreme Court cautioned against routinely transferring cases from state police to the CBI, noting that it overburdens the agency and has a “seriously demoralising impact” on state police officers. The observation came while hearing West Bengal’s challenge to a Calcutta High Court order directing a CBI probe into the alleged custodial torture of two women arrested during protests following the RG Kar Medical College rape-murder case.

In April 2025, while hearing a case where the appellant was accused of impersonating an IB officer and extorting ₹1.49 crore from the complainant, the Supreme Court reiterated that High Courts should not order a CBI investigation in a routine manner or on the basis of vague allegations. Mere bald allegations against the incompetence of the local police to investigate the case without any kind of substantiation would not justify the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Just as the “rarest of rare” doctrine in death penalty cases is shaped by judicial precedents and the court’s discretion, what qualifies as an “extraordinary situation” warranting transfer of investigation also depends on judicial interpretation. It remains a matter of evolving precedent — and inevitably, of debate.

Unique nature of All India Services

On the second issue, the Court’s direction to allow only those officers who are not natives of Tamil Nadu raises an important question about the very spirit of the All India Services (AIS). The AIS — comprising the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Police Service, and the Indian Forest Service — represents a unique federal mechanism, common to both the Centre and the States.

Officers are recruited by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) but serve under state governments, reflecting a carefully balanced design that combines national uniformity with state-level autonomy. This dual accountability ensures administrative cohesion across India while respecting its regional diversity.

In this context, excluding officers solely based on their nativity seems to undercut the foundational idea of the AIS — that officers, irrespective of their origin, are expected to uphold integrity, neutrality, and constitutional duty wherever they serve.

Questions about trust

While the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Karur stampede case emanates from a concern for fairness and credibility, some aspects of its order — particularly the exclusion of native officers — open up deeper questions about trust in state institutions and the federal balance envisioned by the Constitution.

Ensuring impartial investigations is vital, but doing so in a manner that inadvertently casts doubt on the integrity of an entire cadre may set a troubling precedent. The real test lies in strengthening institutional processes — not by drawing lines of nativity, but by reaffirming confidence in the professionalism and constitutional commitment of India’s All India Services.