DMK’s Witness Tampering Plea Against Vijay’s Karur Outreach Withdrawn After SC Rebuke

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a DMK petition seeking restrictions on Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s scheduled interaction with families of victims of the Karur stampede , questioning how such a visit could be considered an attempt to influence witnesses in the ongoing investigation.

A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe asked the DMK how the court could regulate the visit of the state’s executive head and observed that meeting victims’ families by itself did not amount to witness interference. The court indicated that the plea would be dismissed unless withdrawn, following which the DMK withdrew the petition while seeking liberty to approach another legal forum.

The petition was filed by DMK secretary R.S. Bharathi , who alleged that certain ministers and individuals linked to the case could influence witnesses through public statements and direct interactions with victims’ families during the CBI investigation . The plea sought restrictions on Chief Minister Vijay, state minister Aadhav Arjuna , and other accused persons from making public comments or engaging with victims’ families while the probe remains pending.

The controversy stems from the Karur stampede case , in which 41 people were killed during a political event, leading to widespread public outrage and demands for accountability. The Supreme Court had earlier directed a CBI probe into the incident , stating that the tragedy had “shaken the national conscience” and required an impartial investigation.

Vijay is scheduled to visit Karur on July 10 to meet the families of those who died and those injured in the stampede. Reports said the visit would include the distribution of government assistance, including compassionate appointments and other relief measures.

The DMK had argued that since some individuals named in the case later became ministers following the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections , there was a possibility of influence over witnesses. However, the Supreme Court’s response indicated that allegations of witness tampering would require specific evidence and could not be based solely on planned interactions with victims’ families.