Supreme Court Stays Order Blocking 31 Tamil Nadu Jobs for Karur Stampede Kin

Q: Did the Tamil Nadu CM use state jobs to compensate for a deadly stampede at his own political rally?

Yes. After the September 27, 2025 Karur stampede at a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam rally addressed by C. Joseph Vijay, the Tamil Nadu government under Vijay decided to give government jobs to relatives of those who died. Appointment orders were handed to 31 or 32 next of kin in July 2026, and the move was presented by the state as a humanitarian relief measure for bereaved families, especially where a breadwinner may have died. That much is not in dispute. What is disputed is whether the state could legally use public jobs this way. The Madras High Court quashed the decision, saying public employment cannot be treated as a relief package outside established constitutional and recruitment rules, and warning it would be unfair to others waiting for compassionate appointments or regular recruitment. The Supreme Court has now stayed that High Court ruling, so the government’s action is temporarily back in force while the case continues. The bench openly questioned why the state could not provide employment to dependents of victims in an exceptional tragedy. So the factual answer is that Vijay’s government did use state jobs as compensation or relief for families of those killed in the stampede at a rally he addressed. But whether that was lawful remains unresolved. The legal issue before the Supreme Court is not whether the jobs were offered, but whether such appointments are a permissible humanitarian exception or an arbitrary bypass of normal public hiring rules.

3 articles · Updated · The Tribune India · Aug 14

31 appointment orders issued to relatives of Karur stampede victims can stand for now after the Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court ruling that had quashed them.
41 people were killed and more than 60 injured in the September 2025 stampede at a rally addressed by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay, whose government appealed the High Court decision.
The bench questioned the PIL challenge, asking why the state could not provide employment when a family's sole earning member had died, and issued notice to the petitioners.
The High Court had struck down the scheme on July 27, saying jobs instead of ex-gratia could breach constitutional limits, bypass regular recruitment and trigger similar demands from other tragedy victims.