New Delhi: The CBI questioned actor and TVK chief Vijay for over seven hours at its headquarters here on Sunday over last year’s stampede during his rally in Tamil Nadu’s Karur that claimed 41 lives, officials said.
The actor left the agency headquarters after the questioning and related formalities got over around 6 pm, they said. This was the third session of questioning for Vijay. He has been examined twice in January.
Vijay was earlier summoned on March 9. However, he had requested that the date be deferred by 15 days, officials said.
The actor had also urged that the questioning be conducted in Chennai or any office in Tamil Nadu, citing political engagements prior to the upcoming assembly elections, they said.
However, both requests were declined by the agency, which summoned the actor to its headquarters here on Sunday.
The central probe agency has also asked the DMK MLA from Karur, Senthil Balaji, to appear before it for questioning on March 17, officials said.
The CBI took over the case from an SIT following a Supreme Court order and has been gathering evidence related to the September 27, 2025, stampede that claimed 41 lives and left more than 60 people injured during Vijay’s rally in Tamil Nadu’s Karur.
In October last year, the apex court asked the CBI director to appoint a senior officer to take over the investigation and also constituted a supervisory committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Ajay Rastogi to monitor the agency’s investigation.
A bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and N V Anjaria had said the stampede has left an imprint in the minds of citizens throughout the country. It has wide ramifications with respect to the lives of citizens, and enforcing the fundamental rights of the families who lost their kin is of utmost importance, the court had said.
“The faith and trust of the general public in the process of investigation must be restored in the criminal justice system, and one way to instil such trust is by ensuring that the investigation in the present case is completely impartial, independent and unbiased,” the bench had said.
