SC Slams CBI for Not Arresting MP Cops in Custodial Death Case

Supreme Court Slams CBI for Not Arresting Two Madhya Pradesh Cops in Custodial Death Case, Warns of Contempt

Apex court questions agency’s “helplessness” despite clear orders; says absconding officers appear to be “protected”

Bench warns of serious consequences if harm comes to sole eyewitness in judicial custody; directs status report by September 25

By Our legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 23, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for failing to arrest two Madhya Pradesh police officers accused of the custodial death of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi. The apex court warned the agency that continued inaction could lead to contempt proceedings against senior officials.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a contempt petition filed by Pardhi’s mother, Hansura Bai, alleging breach of the court’s May 15, 2025 order directing the arrest of the officers within one month.

The Court’s Strong Words

Justice Nagarathna told the CBI’s counsel:

“This can’t go on like this. Despite a Supreme Court order, you are unable to act. Then what is the use? You are pleading helplessness! ‘He is absconding, proclamation is there, we can’t trace.’ Please don’t plead helplessness. We will only say your helplessness feels in the garb of protection.”

The bench repeatedly pressed the CBI on why the two officers — Sanjiv Singh Malviya and Uttam Singh Kushwaha — had not been arrested despite being declared proclaimed offenders and having non-bailable warrants issued against them.

Justice Nagarathna remarked that the CBI “swoops down and arrests within seconds or minutes” in other cases but was unable to arrest “its own people.” Justice Mahadevan called the situation “very unfortunate.”

Background of the Case

The case concerns the death of Deva Pardhi after his arrest in a theft case along with his uncle, Gangaram Pardhi, who remains in custody.

July 14, 2023: Deva and Gangaram were picked up from home during a family function.
Allegations: Deva’s mother claims he was tortured and killed in police custody.
Police Version: Madhya Pradesh police said Deva died of a heart attack.
May 15, 2025: Supreme Court transferred the investigation from MP police to the CBI, citing attempts to cover up and influence the probe.

The court had ordered the arrest of the officers responsible within one month and completion of the investigation within 90 days of the arrests. It also noted threats to Gangaram, the sole eyewitness, and directed the state to ensure his protection.

Eyewitness Safety Concerns

During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench warned the CBI that it would hold the agency accountable if anything happened to Gangaram Pardhi while in judicial custody:

“We will not spare you if anything untoward happens to Gangaram Pardhi and there is a second custodial event. Please inform the prison officials supervising his judicial custody. There cannot be a second custodial death otherwise we will take it seriously.”

The petitioner’s counsel alleged that Gangaram had faced harassment and assaults in custody, including being beaten after an accused officer’s anticipatory bail plea was rejected. She claimed prison officials were “hand in glove” with the police.

CBI’s Defence

The CBI told the court that:

A charge sheet was filed on September 15, 2025.
Three officers have been arrested.
The two main accused have been absconding since April 2025.
Raids and digital surveillance have been conducted.
Applications have been filed for attachment of their property.

The agency argued that the officers were absconding before the CBI took over the case.

Court’s Response

The bench was unconvinced, suggesting the CBI knew where the officers were and was protecting them. Justice Nagarathna said:

“Absconding means protecting. That is the meaning you want to say.”

The court indicated it might frame contempt charges against the Chief Secretary, CBI Director, and the Additional Superintendent responsible for the investigation if arrests were not made promptly.

Next Steps Ordered by the Court

Status Report: CBI to file a detailed report on steps taken to trace and arrest the officers.
Affidavits: Investigating officers to submit affidavits by Thursday.
Deadline: If arrests are made within two days, contempt proceedings may be dropped.
Eyewitness Protection: Jail authorities to be informed that “nothing should happen to the eyewitness, not even a scar,” as Justice Mahadevan put it.

The matter is listed for further hearing on September 25, 2025.

Legal and Social Significance

This case underscores several critical issues:

Accountability in Custodial Deaths: The Supreme Court’s intervention reflects growing concern over custodial violence and impunity for police officers.
CBI’s Role: The agency’s perceived reluctance to act against fellow law enforcement officers raises questions about institutional bias.
Protection of Witnesses: Ensuring safety for key witnesses in custodial death cases is vital to prevent intimidation and obstruction of justice.

Custodial Deaths in India – A Larger Problem

Custodial deaths remain a persistent human rights concern in India. According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), hundreds of such deaths are reported annually, often linked to torture or neglect.

The Supreme Court has previously issued guidelines to prevent custodial abuse, including:

Installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and lock-ups.
Mandatory magisterial inquiries into custodial deaths.
Strict adherence to arrest and detention procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Yet, compliance remains inconsistent, and cases like Deva Pardhi’s highlight systemic failures.

Political and Public Reaction

Human rights activists have welcomed the Supreme Court’s tough stance, calling it a necessary step to break the cycle of impunity.

Social media discussions have been sharply critical of the CBI’s “helplessness” claim, with many users echoing Justice Nagarathna’s observation that absconding often means protection.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s sharp rebuke to the CBI in the Deva Pardhi custodial death case is a reminder that judicial orders must be enforced without fear or favour.

By setting strict deadlines and warning of contempt, the court has signalled its determination to ensure accountability — not just for the accused officers, but also for the agencies tasked with bringing them to justice.

The coming days will reveal whether the CBI acts decisively or faces the consequences of continued delay.