Bengaluru, Dec. 3 -- The Tamil Nadu government has accused the Supreme Court of breaching principles of natural justice and non-discrimination by transferring the investigation into the September 27 Karur stampede to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) without giving the state an opportunity to respond, urging the court to recall its October 13 order and allow the probe to continue under the special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Madras high court. In a strongly-worded affidavit filed ahead of the December 12 hearing before a bench led by justice JK Maheshwari, the state argued that the Supreme Court's direction, passed while hearing a petition filed by Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) leaders, amounted to granting final relief at an interim stage. The October 13 order shifted the investigation to CBI and entrusted supervision to a three-member committee headed by former Supreme Court judge justice Ajay Rastogi. Calling the order an "adjudication without pleadings," the state asserted that it was denied a "fair opportunity" to place crucial factual material before the court, including safety permissions, crowd-control assessments and compliance with NDMA guidelines leading up to the stampede, which killed 41 people and injured over 100 during a public outreach event of actor Vijay's newly-launched political party in Karur. The affidavit emphasised that the TVK petition before the Supreme Court neither sought a CBI probe nor challenged the constitution of the SIT formed by the Madras high court. Instead, the petition only requested a committee headed by a retired judge to monitor the ongoing investigation. "Therefore, transfer of investigation from SIT to CBI deserves to be set aside as the petitioner has neither sought nor pleaded for such relief," said the state, adding that the petitioner "cannot choose his investigation agency," particularly when TVK leader Adhav Arjuna is himself named as an accused in the case. The state further submitted that the high court-appointed SIT headed by senior IPS officer Asra Garg was a balanced exercise of judicial discretion meant to ensure transparency without undermining the state's authority over law and order. Raising a separate constitutional challenge, the affidavit objected to the Supreme Court directive that the supervisory committee must include two IPS officers from the Tamil Nadu cadre who are "non-native" to the state. Such a distinction, the State said, "is ex facie unconstitutional" and violates Articles 14 and 15 by presuming that officers born in Tamil Nadu are inherently less impartial. The issue triggered debate in the Tamil Nadu Assembly on October 15. Chief minister MK Stalin assured the House that the government would seek appropriate orders from the Supreme Court, stated the affidavit. The state added that the top court's order cannot lead to an "independent and fair investigation" as several layers in the investigation and collection and review of evidence by multiple persons would hamper the independent investigation. "Since the committee is handling the evidences, it is susceptible for the cross examination during trial and no justice will be rendered to the 41 victims who died and 142 who were injured," the state claimed. The state also flagged a subsequent development - a private meeting on October 27 between TVK founder Vijay and the families of victims at Mamallapuram. Calling it a cause for concern, the affidavit claimed that it raises "serious apprehensions" about tutoring or influencing witnesses during a pending probe and seeks directions restraining similar meetings until the charge sheet is filed. Arguing that the investigation was at a "nascent stage" when the transfer was ordered, Tamil Nadu said there was no evidence of bias or mala fides to justify invoking the extraordinary power of transferring an investigation away from the state police. The Supreme Court's reliance on "political undertones" and media comments by police officers, the affidavit said, cannot be grounds for intervention. The state also argued that keeping the public informed during a tragedy of such scale is part of official duty, consistent with service rules and the right to know....