A recent tragic stampede at a political gathering in Karur, addressed by actor Vijay and organized by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leaders, resulted in 40 fatalities. The Karur Town Police have charged the leaders with “acts endangering life and personal safety.”
This offense is covered under Section 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses causing “grievous hurt” through reckless and negligent actions that threaten human life or safety. This BNS provision effectively replaces the former Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
Defining Negligence in Crowd Incidents
A similar charge under the erstwhile Section 338 was leveled against actor Shah Rukh Khan following a 2017 stampede in Vadodara. During a film promotion for ‘Raees’ in January 2017, Mr. Khan was accused of negligently throwing promotional items like ‘smiley balls’ and ‘T-shirts’ into a crowd at the Vadodara railway station. This led to a scramble, causing one death and multiple injuries.
However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the case against Mr. Khan in April 2022. Later that year, a Supreme Court bench, comprising the retired Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, upheld the High Court’s reasoning. The courts clarified that for an act to be considered a criminal offense, the recklessness and negligence involved must be “extremely high” or “gross” in degree.
The Legal Standard for Criminal Negligence
The courts emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal negligence. “What constitutes negligence in civil law might not necessarily meet the threshold for criminal negligence. For an act to be a criminal offense, the element of mens rea [criminal intent] must be demonstrable. The level of negligence required for a criminal charge must be significantly higher — ‘gross’ or of an ‘extremely high degree.’ Simple negligence, which is neither gross nor extreme, may warrant civil action but cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution,” the High Court elucidated.
These interpretations align with the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, which provided a comprehensive analysis of negligence in criminal law. Crucially, the ruling in Mr. Khan’s case reaffirmed that a death must be a direct consequence of the accused’s reckless and negligent act. Furthermore, the alleged act must be the immediate and effective cause, without any intervening or contributing negligence from others.
“The alleged action by the accused must be the direct cause of the death, and there should be no contributing negligence from any other individual, including the deceased,” the High Court stressed.
The court further clarified that “merely violating certain rules or regulations” while performing an act that results in death does not automatically establish that the death was due to a rash or negligent act, nor does it prove that such an act was the direct and efficient cause of death.