The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 7, 2026) said restraining Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leaders from making public statements linking political rivals with the Karur stampede may amount to an injunction on “free speech.”

The court advised the Opposition Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) to counter such statements with “more speech”, rather than seek a judicial gag.

The remarks by a Bench headed by Justice K.V. Viswanathan came during the hearing of an application filed by DMK Organising Secretary R.S. Bharathi, alleging that TVK leaders, including Aadhav Arjuna, were publicly making false accusations of criminal liability and issuing “threats” against political opponents in connection with the Karur stampede. Mr. Bharathi had also sought to be impleaded as a party in the Karur stampede case pending before the Supreme Court.

The tragedy left 41 people dead and 142 injured during a TVK rally on September 27 last year. The apex court had ordered a CBI investigation into the stampede on October 13, 2025. The probe is continuing, and some TVK leaders have been named as accused.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Mr. Bharathi, said TVK leaders, including Mr. Arjuna, who is also an accused in the stampede case under CBI investigation, should be restrained from making public statements on the case during the pendency of the investigation.

“That may amount to an injunction on free speech. Mr. Kumar. Which law sanctions it? You also make your speeches, you counter free speech with more speech,” Justice Viswanathan remarked.

The Bench questioned the propriety of entertaining the impleadment plea of a political rival in a case in which it had ordered a CBI investigation and was monitoring its progress. Justice Viswanathan said the court could not be converted into a political forum and that political battles must be fought outside the courtroom.

Further, Mr. Kumar objected to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s proposed visit to Karur on July 10 to meet the families of the stampede victims and hand over compassionate appointments. He said the State government had already announced an ex gratia payment of ₹10 lakh to the affected families.

Mr. Kumar said a “narrative is being built by the accused persons. I am not against the compensation, I am against compensation being given directly by the accused to the families, who are also witnesses in the case,” the senior advocate said.

The court said Mr. Vijay was arraigned as an accused neither in the FIRs nor in the DMK’s own application.

“You please check up on your facts,” Justice Viswanathan said.

The judge asked how the Supreme Court was expected to “regulate the itinerary” of the Chief Minister.

“If the Executive Head is travelling to merely distribute what has already been ordered for the victims by the State government, how will the victims be influenced? Does it not really reflect your thoughts on the victims?” Justice Viswanathan asked, expressing doubt whether the application was “well-thought through” in the first place.

Acting on instructions, Mr. Kumar withdrew the application.