“In just 3 and half years since 2022(post-covid) stampedes in India has trampled over 240 lives and injured 400+ people becoming a national crisis. As estimated, 80-85% deaths occurred in religious events.”
The urge to meet stars, the pious devotion and faithful worship of god is breaking lives now. Stampedes are no longer rare; they are becoming an alarming routine now a days by echoing too often in our headlines. These recent tragedies because of people hopes to enrich their lives is ironically costing them their own life which can never be reclaimed or replaced, not even with all the wealth in the world just because of unsafe and unmanaged crowd. While government inquiries are ordered after every incident, why not enact a law that can prevent such inquires in the first place, especially because existing disaster management laws fail to address this type of mass crowd events. Therefore, this article specifically examines the silence of laws governing stampede prevention in India comparing international crowd management protocols and also questions the irregularities by highlighting the best practices, this article argues that with the formulation of proactive laws, stampedes can be treated as preventable tragedies rather than unavoidable accidental.
DEFINING THE UNDEFINED
The definition of stampede has never been termed in Law. According to the dictionary meaning of stampede it is considered to be “an occasion when many large animals or many people suddenly all move quickly and in an uncontrolled way, usually in the same direction at the same time, especially because of fear.”
In every few months, a headline flashes saying lives crushed because of unmanageable crowd yet the word stampede didn’t find its place in Indian legal statutes. This absence in law reflects a deeper gap. Globally, conventions and frameworks like “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction(2015-2030)”[1] recognises mass gatherings risks, but stopped at legally codifying them. Even in India, the Disaster Management Act, 2005[2] and the NDMA’s mass gathering guidelines(2014) places recommendations but lack enforcement. Defining a term in law isn’t just semantics rather it determines accountability, jurisdiction and procedural response. Defining a term has given birth to many quintessential laws in the history, like the term genocide didn’t exist legally until World War II, which was defined legally in 1948 UN Genocide Convention, leading to international trails and obligations. Even in India, terms like “Acid Attack” were prosecuted under grievous hurt and there was no specific provision, no clear legal recognition or consistent sentencing and only after survivors like Laxmi Agarwal petitioned in supreme court[3] did the 2013 amendment added 326A and 326B to IPC specifically Defining and criminalizing acid Attacks. And only after 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape case did the definition of “Juvenile”[4] was added to reflect the criminal capacity. According to me, the definition of stampede should include:
“A sudden, uncontrolled movement of a large group of people in an area, resulting in physical injury, trauma, or death due to crowd pressure, crushing, or asphyxiation; and arising from panic, miscommunication, inadequate crowd control, or administrative failure during a public gathering.”
The moment its defined, it gains visibility in law, triggering responsibilities and without the definition, no institution is bound to prevent it.
NEVER IN LAW: THE LEGAL VACUUM
Before the year 2014, there were no specific guidelines or laws relating to stampede but were only addressed under general criminal or procedural laws or they can be interpreted as man-made disasters under Disaster Management Act. The need was felt in 2014 and only guidelines were formulated by NDMA exercising their power under Section 6(2)(e)[5] of the National Disaster Management Act 2005 and not a Law, if not a legislation it should at least be included in the existing Disaster Management Law. Laws that were involved to penalize the act are:
Indian Penal Code ( Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita)
These are used after a stamped, to determine accountability and not for prevention. Thus creating a legal Vacuum.
Section 304A of IPC, now section 106(1) of BNS[6] – causing death by negligence.
- Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amount to culpable homicide is punishable.
This is applied when administrative failures like crowd mismanagement occurs causing death as they do not have any prior intention or knowledge but such act has occurred only because of some negligence on their part.
Section 337/338 of IPC now section 125 of BNS[7]
- Any hurt or grievous hurt is caused by any act rashly or negligently done as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others is punishable.
This section is invoked when a stampede cause injury to people because of administrative negligence. The authorities can be held liable under this but for this requires proving of individual or institutional negligence. These sections are only applied after the tragedy and not for the prevention before.
Criminal Procedure Code ( Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)
These are the preventive powers used for prevention of tragedies occurred in mass gatherings:
Section 144 of CrPC now under section 163 of BNSS[8]:
- If a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate (authorized by the State Government) has the power to stop any event in written order if they believe that prevent any harm, obstruction, annoyance, injury to someone or if there is any danger to life, health, or safety or to stop public disturbances, riots or fights.
Section 133 of CrPC, now under section 152 of BNSS[9]:
- This can be invoked to remove obstructions or nuisance in public spaces if District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate believe that there exists any danger to public.
The application of these sections is prior to any mass gathering is to take place is only useful when there is an anticipation of threat moreover, they do not impose any obligations on authorities or event organizers to carry out safety assessments, implement crowd control measures, or ensure any structural preparedness.
Incidents of Stampedes
The recent stampede in sandhya theatre for the screening of Pushpa 2 which resulted in the death of a women was in someway or the other is governed under Cinematography Act ,1952 which primarily governs film certification and exhibition in theatres. Section 13 of this Act deals with the “power of Central Government or local authority to suspend exhibition of films in certain cases”[10]. Which specifically mentions about the power of authorities to treat film as uncertified if it risks disturbing public order. This is misfit for this situation as this section focusses on the content or exhibition of the film, and not on managing or anticipating the crowd behaviour, in case of Pushpa stampede, the threat was from uncontrolled crowd volume and lack of venue capacity regulation and absence of emergency protocols. In practice, NHRC involved and ordered for an inquiry and issued of notice to Telangana DGP and Hyderabad Police commissioner, requesting a detailed Action Taken Report (ATR) because a complaint alleges the reason of chaos was because of police lathi charge.[11] Therefore NHRC under Section 12 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993[12] can take a case for inquiry on Suo moto or upon complaint when there is violation of human rights or negligence by a public servant in preventing such violations. In this case right to life has been compromised which is a Fundamental right under Article 21 of Indian Constitution and the allegations of police lathi along with failure of crowd management by public officials directly contributes negligence in duty so orders an inquiry.
The Tragedy in February at New Delhi Railway Station is being looked after by a two-member high level committee set up by Northern Railway to investigate and establish the exact sequence of events.[13] Using their power under section 113 and 114 of The Railway Act,1989 where a commissioner or railway administration can conduct inquiry if there occurs any death or grievous hurt in the course of working a railway. But these are just reactive provision and not proactive.
GUIDELINES OF 2014
If we now explore the National Disaster Management Authority’s Guidelines on “Managing Crowd at Events and Venues of Mass Gathering”,[14] A Guide for state government, local authorities, administrators and organizers of 2014 has been formulated to move from the erst while “Crowd Control” to “Crowd Management” approach. These guidelines are suggested based on past disasters and global best practices, aims to assist state and local authorities. Some of the best practices being
- Science and Technology, especially ICT, planning a big role in managing crowds’ safety. Tools like CCTV,RFID Tags, online registration, and GIS maps help in tracking crowd movements for controlling the flow of people. Using drones and satellite tools can also improve surveillance and planning big events.
- Hazard and Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (HRVA): Identifying possible hazards based on venue and event type along with conducting a written risk assessment and mitigation plan.
- Event Approval: Approvals based on checklist review and risk assessment.
In Appendix 3.2, it mentions about the theatrical concerts or rallies to be managed in a structured way is mentioned which says planning of event(crowd size, purpose, time, location), safe venue (capacity limit, exist, barricades), Staff organization (appointing event controller, safety officer), preparedness for unexpected etc. If these guidelines had been followed the event should have had a pre-approved capacity and crowd risk assessment which might have prevented the stampede.
In a session of Lok Sabha, a question was posed after the causalities of Kumbh mela on 18th march, 2025[15] in which the central government clarified that the public order and police fall under state subjects as per seventh schedule of Indian Constitution therefore the stampede management, investigations, and relief are the responsibility of Stata Government. Moreover, organizing events, managing crowds, conducting inquiries and providing compensation are handled by the respective states. In this we can conclude that the accountability is on the state to control or manage the crowds and enact laws for the same.
Even after the central guidelines being formulated there was no change in the frequency of occurrence of stampedes in India. Therefore, enactment of a law is the need of the hour because even in history, There were EIA guidelines since 1994, recommending project clearance protocols before construction. Most companies ignored them, and pollution started spreading.
And only after a law has been formulated with legal consequences for violating terms has impacted with a right to challenge in courts has the game changed.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, Defining “Stampede” in law is the first step to saving lives. It enables the state to view such tragedies as failure in planning rather than accidents and to respond appropriately. Stampedes doesn’t just expose crowd mismanagement but the absence of legal foresight. Even though stampedes still result in fatalities and make news, they are still not legally visible. The 2014 guidelines and not so effectively enforced. There is no true accountability in the absence of a specific legislation. A dedicated stampede Prevention Act must include real-time crowd density monitoring as mentioned in guidelines. There is an immediate need for a specific legal framework with preventive measure, only then will we be able to transform from reactive policies to proactive policies to safeguard human life during large-scale events.
[1] United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.224/CRP.1 (Mar. 18, 2015).
[2] The Disaster Management Act, No. 53 of 2005, INDIA CODE (2005).
[3] Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427 (India).
[4] Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1 (India).
[5] The Disaster Management Act, No. 53 of 2005, § 6(2)(e), India Code (2005)
[6] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, § 106(1), India Code (2023).
[7] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, § 125, India Code (2023).
[8] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, § 163, India Code (2023).
[9] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, § 152, India Code (2023).
[10] The Cinematograph Act, No. 37 of 1952, § 13, India Code (1952).
[11] National Human Rights Commission, NHRC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Stampede at Pushpa 2 Event (Jan. 4, 2025), https://nhrc.nic.in/sites/default/files/2025-1-04_compressed.pdf.
[12] The Protection of Human Rights Act, No. 10 of 1994, § 12, India Code (1994).
[13] Press Information Bureau, Clarification on Media Reports Regarding New Delhi Railway Station Stampede (May 24, 2025), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2104489.
[14] National Disaster Management Authority, Managing Crowds at Events and Venues of Mass Gathering: A National Guide (2014), https://ndma.gov.in/sites/default/files/PDF/Reports/managingcrowdsguide.pdf.
[15] Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2886: Stampede at Kumbh Mela (Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.mha.gov.in/MHA1/Par2017/pdfs/par2025%20pdfs/LS18032025/2886.pdf.
Author: Amrudh Veekshitha
Juris Centre 