Karur stampede: Madras HC quashes TN govt order on compassionate jobs for victims' kin
Advertisement
Chennai, July 27 : The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench on Monday set aside a Tamil Nadu government order granting compassionate appointments to the families of those who died in the September 2025 Karur stampede, ruling that the decision violated the constitutional principles of equality and equal opportunity in public employment.
A division bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel held that compassionate appointments cannot be extended through executive discretion in a manner that bypasses established legal norms.
It observed that such appointments are intended to address the immediate financial distress caused by the death of a government employee in service and cannot be treated as a general relief measure following a public tragedy.
The bench emphasised that the state’s executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution are not unlimited and must operate strictly within constitutional boundaries. It noted that any exercise of executive authority that departs from the guarantees enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 would be legally unsustainable.
Delivering the verdict, the court observed that the government’s decision overlooked the rights of thousands of eligible applicants already waiting for compassionate appointments in various government departments.
Extending such appointments to the families of stampede victims, it said, would unfairly place them ahead of others who had been awaiting consideration under the existing policy framework.
The judges held that Articles 14 and 16, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment, cannot be diluted through administrative orders.
While acknowledging the tragedy and the state’s concern for the bereaved families, the bench said constitutional safeguards must prevail over executive decisions.
Rejecting the government’s justification that the appointments were made under its administrative powers, the court clarified that executive authority must always remain subject to constitutional limitations.
"Exercise of executive power must be within the constitutional limits. If executive action were to be left unfettered and given free hand, chaos will reign," it observed.
The ruling reinforces the legal principle that compassionate appointments are an exception to the normal recruitment process and must be governed by established statutory and constitutional norms. While the state remains free to provide financial assistance or other forms of relief to families affected by disasters, the court made it clear that public employment cannot be granted in violation of the Constitution’s guarantees of equality and fairness.
A division bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel held that compassionate appointments cannot be extended through executive discretion in a manner that bypasses established legal norms.
It observed that such appointments are intended to address the immediate financial distress caused by the death of a government employee in service and cannot be treated as a general relief measure following a public tragedy.
The bench emphasised that the state’s executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution are not unlimited and must operate strictly within constitutional boundaries. It noted that any exercise of executive authority that departs from the guarantees enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 would be legally unsustainable.
Delivering the verdict, the court observed that the government’s decision overlooked the rights of thousands of eligible applicants already waiting for compassionate appointments in various government departments.
Extending such appointments to the families of stampede victims, it said, would unfairly place them ahead of others who had been awaiting consideration under the existing policy framework.
The judges held that Articles 14 and 16, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment, cannot be diluted through administrative orders.
While acknowledging the tragedy and the state’s concern for the bereaved families, the bench said constitutional safeguards must prevail over executive decisions.
Rejecting the government’s justification that the appointments were made under its administrative powers, the court clarified that executive authority must always remain subject to constitutional limitations.
"Exercise of executive power must be within the constitutional limits. If executive action were to be left unfettered and given free hand, chaos will reign," it observed.
The ruling reinforces the legal principle that compassionate appointments are an exception to the normal recruitment process and must be governed by established statutory and constitutional norms. While the state remains free to provide financial assistance or other forms of relief to families affected by disasters, the court made it clear that public employment cannot be granted in violation of the Constitution’s guarantees of equality and fairness.
Advertisement
Note: The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the ap7am team.