Difficult For Court To Frame Pan-India SOP For Rallies: Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Approach MHA & ECI

Introduction

In a significant ruling addressing public safety, crowd management, and the limits of judicial intervention, the Supreme Court of India on 22 January 2026 declined to frame pan-India Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for rallies, demonstrations, and large public gatherings. Observing that such policy formulation falls within the domain of executive authorities and law enforcement agencies, the Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue representations before the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The decision reiterates judicial restraint in matters involving administrative policy, law and order, and logistical enforcement, particularly in the context of political rallies and mass gatherings which vary widely across regions.

Case Background

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 40 of 2026, filed by Tumbalam Gooty Venkatesh, a former Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament and former State Minister from Andhra Pradesh.

The PIL sought the formulation of mandatory national guidelines to regulate crowd size, safety mechanisms, and administrative preparedness at political rallies, demonstrations, and other large public events, in order to prevent stampede incidents.

The plea was prompted by several tragic incidents in recent years, including stampedes during the RCB victory rally in Bengaluru (June 2025) and a political rally of the TVK party in Karur (September 2025), which highlighted systemic lapses in crowd management.

Reliefs Sought in the PIL

The petitioner contended that the absence of a national crowd management policy has led to recurring public safety failures. Among the key reliefs sought were:

Framing of uniform pan-India SOPs for rallies and public gatherings
Directions to the Union of India and ECI to regulate political rallies
Creation of a centralised digital platform for assessing and approving rallies
Establishment of a National Crowd Management and Safety Code
Mandatory risk audits, real-time surveillance, and use of modern technology at public venues

The petition argued that such institutional mechanisms are essential to prevent overcrowding, stampedes, and loss of life.

Submissions Before the Court

Advocate G. Priyadharshni, appearing for the petitioner, emphasized that stampede-related deaths occur almost every year, yet India lacks even a legal definition of the term “stampede.” She argued that while some states like Tamil Nadu have framed SOPs for political rallies following High Court intervention, other states continue to function without minimum benchmarks.

The counsel urged the Supreme Court to lay down at least baseline national standards, citing precedents where courts have intervened to regulate sensitive institutions such as homes for the mentally challenged.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Bench, however, expressed serious reservations about issuing blanket pan-India directions. Chief Justice Surya Kant raised critical practical concerns:

“Is it possible to comply with such directions? Let’s not issue anything which will become unmanageable.”

Illustrating the difficulty of enforcement, the CJI observed that if a venue is permitted to accommodate only a limited number of persons, authorities would still be powerless if far more people turn up voluntarily.

“How to stop people from coming? Can you really curtail the right of persons to participate and prevent them?” the CJI questioned.

The Court emphasized that crowd control involves complex ground realities, diverse local conditions, and real-time decision-making, making uniform judicial directions impractical.

Judicial Restraint and Executive Domain

In its order, the Supreme Court noted that the issue primarily concerns the responsibility of the Union and States to maintain law and order in public places. Policy formulation, the Court held, is best handled by domain experts and law enforcement agencies, not courts.

The Bench observed:

“The directions sought are essentially for the formulation of a policy for which the domain experts and the law enforcement agencies are more suitable.”

Since the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the petition without expressing any opinion on its merits.

Liberty Granted to Approach MHA and ECI

While declining to interfere, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue his representation before:

The Ministry of Home Affairs, and
The Election Commission of India, particularly for SOPs governing political rallies and roadshows.

The Court clarified that competent authorities may consider the suggestions and take an appropriate decision if they deem it fit.

Significantly, the Bench also noted that the writ petition was filed within days of submitting the representation, without allowing sufficient time for the executive authorities to respond.

Constitutional and Legal Significance

This ruling is important for several reasons:

Separation of Powers: The judgment reinforces the constitutional boundary between judicial review and executive policymaking.
Practical Governance: The Court acknowledged real-world enforcement challenges, rejecting idealistic but impractical judicial mandates.
Right to Assembly: Any crowd-control guideline must balance public safety with fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(b).
Federal Realities: Law and order being a State subject, uniform national directions may not be feasible without legislative backing.

Way Forward

Although the Court declined to frame national SOPs, the judgment indirectly nudges executive authorities to seriously engage with the issue of crowd safety. With increasing political mobilisation, victory parades, and public demonstrations, the absence of a coordinated framework remains a pressing concern.

The onus now lies on the MHA, ECI, and State governments to examine the petitioner’s proposals and consider whether technology-driven, adaptable safety protocols can be evolved without infringing democratic participation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tumbalam Gooty Venkatesh v. Union of India underscores a careful balance between judicial restraint and public safety concerns. While recognising the gravity of stampede-related deaths, the Court declined to assume the role of a policy-maker, instead directing the issue to constitutionally appropriate authorities.

As India continues to witness large-scale political and public gatherings, the judgment serves as a reminder that effective crowd management requires administrative foresight, technological support, and coordinated governance, rather than judicially imposed one-size-fits-all solutions.