Court notes West Bengal has already moved to set up a Commission of Inquiry into the Durga Puja pandal tragedy that killed 19 and injured around 25; retired judge may be appointed if serving judge is not spared
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday said it would not itself monitor the proposed inquiry into the deadly stampede at the Chorbagan Sarbojonin Durga Puja pandal in Kolkata, while recording that the West Bengal government has already initiated steps to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Tapas Kumar Dey over the 17 October 2026 stampede, which resulted in the death of 19 persons and left about 25 others injured.
The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, argued that the tragedy was preventable and stemmed from gross negligence, mismanagement and disregard for public safety. The plea highlighted several alleged failures, including narrow entry and exit gates, inadequate police deployment, poor lighting, an allegedly wrong public announcement that triggered panic, and the absence of an emergency medical response plan.
During the hearing, the State informed the Bench that the government had already written to the Chief Justice on 18 October 2026 seeking permission to spare a serving judge of the High Court to head the proposed inquiry commission. The Bench also noted that the State had prepared draft Terms of Reference for the inquiry and had already decided to appoint a commission to investigate the incident.
The court held that the question of whether a sitting judge of the High Court should be made available to head such a commission lies exclusively with the Chief Justice on the administrative side. If a serving judge is not spared, the Bench said, the State government, as the “appropriate government” under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, would be free to appoint a retired judge of the Calcutta High Court in accordance with law.
In reaching this view, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in T. Fenn Walter v. Union of India, which cautioned that sitting judges should be appointed to head commissions only on rare occasions. The High Court observed that such appointments must be weighed against mounting judicial arrears, the effect on regular court work, and the need to preserve the independence and dignity of the judiciary. The Bench also took note of the Calcutta High Court’s current shortage of judges, observing that against a sanctioned strength of 72, the court was functioning with only 50 judges, with two more retirements imminent.
The Bench reproduced the State’s proposed Terms of Reference in its order. These include examining the exact sequence of events that led to the stampede; the causes and contributing factors such as overcrowding, weather conditions, gate management, rumours, electrical failure and crowd-control lapses; the adequacy of structural arrangements and emergency exits; the preparedness and response of organisers, volunteers, police, hospitals, fire services and civic authorities; and whether permissions and crowd-management plans were granted and implemented in accordance with law and relevant guidelines.
The proposed inquiry will also look into CCTV footage, mobile videos, police logs, medical records and other evidence, and determine whether any lapse, negligence, dereliction of duty or coordination failure can be attributed to organisers, police authorities, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Public Works Department, Fire and Emergency Services, CESC Limited or any other agency or individual. It will further consider compensation, rehabilitation and preventive measures for future large Durga Puja gatherings, especially in the congested lanes of North Kolkata.
Senior advocate Bandyopadhyay told the court that he was satisfied with the proposed Terms of Reference and with the State’s stand that a retired judge could be appointed if a serving judge was not made available.
Clarifying the limits of judicial intervention, the High Court said that under the statutory scheme it would not oversee the functioning of the inquiry commission. The report, once submitted, would have to be dealt with by the State government.
However, at the petitioner’s request, the Bench did not dispose of the PIL and instead kept it pending. The court said that after the inquiry concludes and the report is submitted, the petitioner may seek to address the court further, and all contentions of all parties, including the maintainability of the PIL, would remain open.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation arising from stampede at Durga Puja pandal - State Government having already decided to constitute an Inquiry Commission under Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Whether a sitting Judge should be spared to head Commission is for Chief Justice to decide on administrative side - If sitting Judge is not spared, State may appoint a retired Judge in accordance with law - High Court would not monitor inquiry and petition kept pending with all contentions open.
Statutory provision(s): Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India, Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Article 262 of the Constitution of India, Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956
Tapas Kumar Dey v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2999671
