Calcutta High Court orders retired judge to lead Chorbagan stampede inquiry, turns down sitting judge

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday ordered the West Bengal government to set up a commission of inquiry headed by a retired High Court judge into the stampede at Kolkata’s Chorbagan Durga Puja pandal, which killed 19 people on Saturday evening.

A division bench presided over by Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge said the commission should look into what caused the crush and who was responsible for it. The court turned down the state’s request for a sitting High Court judge to lead the probe, saying a Supreme Court directive stood in the way of such an appointment.

The bench sat in a special session on Navami, at the height of the Durga Puja holidays, to hear a public interest litigation filed by a lawyer who sought an independent and speedy investigation into the tragedy.

What the state had promised

The order reshapes the inquiry Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari announced after the disaster. Adhikari had said a sitting judge of the High Court would head a special investigation team, and that its findings would be made public. With the court ruling out a sitting judge, the government will now have to name a retired judge to head a formal commission.

Police have already registered a culpable homicide case over the crush, and seven people, including the secretary of the puja committee, have been arrested. A high-level safety team has since been moving through Kolkata’s biggest pandals, banning VIP queues and food stalls at entry gates.

The night at Chorbagan

The crowd waiting outside the north Kolkata pandal surged forward as rain began on 17 October. An exit gate gave way under the weight of people pressing against it, and 19 people were killed in the crush that followed. It was the deadliest incident of the festival season in the city in years, and it led the government to call off all its own Puja events.

What happens next

The state must now constitute the commission and settle its terms. The court did not set a deadline for the inquiry’s report in the order as reported so far, and the date of the next hearing has not been made public. The petitioner had asked for a probe that is both independent of the administration and quick, two demands the commission’s make-up and timetable will be judged against.