TVK boss and actor Vijay during the rally in Karur, Tamil Nadu, where Stampede became 27 September 2025. Photo Credit: M. Moorthy
One of the offenses coped against the leaders of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) if the Karur Municipal Police approached the actor Vijay, who led to a loss of 40 lives, is a “act that endangers the life and personal security of others”.
Read also: TVK Rally Stampede in Tamil Over Update
Section 125 (a). B) Bharatiya nyaya Sanhit (BNS) covers a crime causing “severe injury” through rash and negligence that threatens human life or personal security of others. The provision of BNS replaces Section 338 of the Indian Criminal Code.
Stampede on the platform
Section 338 was triggered against actor Shah Rukh Khan in the case of Vadodar Stampede in 2017. The actor was accused of negotiations and carelessly thrown away “smileys” and “T -shirts” to the crowd collected at the Vadodar Station in January 2017.
Editorial | Tragedy that can be prevented: at the Rally TVK Stampede
The case against Mr. Khan was canceled in April 2022 by the High Court in Gujarat. In September of the same year, the bench of the Supreme Court of Judges Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar (both retired) refused to intervene against the justification in the Supreme Court’s decision, explaining that the affected person was to intervene against the reason, which is in accordance with the Supreme Court.
The definition of negligence
“The negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What May Be NEGLIGENCE IN CIVIL LAW May Not Necessarily Be Negligence in Criminal Law. For negligence to amount to an office, The Element of Mens Rea Degree of negligence Should be Much Higher, That Is, Gross or of A Vere High Degree.
The High Court’s observation was based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew vs in Pandjáb, which considerably discussed negligence as a crime. Secondly, the judgment in the case of Mr. Khan saw that the courts confirm that death should be the direct result of the rash and negligence of the accused. In addition, it must be an alleged act of an immediate and effective cause without any negligence.
“The alleged act of a part of the accused should be an act that led to death and should not be any intervening or contributory negligence of any other person, including the deceased,” said the High Court.
It justified that “the mere fact of the accused violates certain rules or regulations” in implementing a particular act that caused another death, that death was the result of rash or negligence, or any such act was the closest and effective cause of death.
Published – 28 September 2025 21:11 is
