Facts: In a sad incident,95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Staduim. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting to many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru stadium disaster. The disaster was Broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die, Other were present in the stadium of had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a results. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor? (AILET 2019)

Each question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. You have to apply the principles to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. Remember: you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given for every question.