SC Warns of Contempt as MP Govt, CBI Accused of Protecting Absconding Cops in Custodial Death Case

NEW DELHI – In a scathing indictment of state machinery and investigative lethargy, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday lambasted the Madhya Pradesh government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for their collective failure to arrest two police officers accused in the custodial death of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, hearing a contempt petition, strongly suggested that the state was actively protecting the absconding officers and warned that the continued inaction amounted to contempt of the Court's express orders.

The Court's sharp rebuke came during the hearing of a contempt plea filed by Pardhi's mother, alleging non-compliance with the apex court's May 15, 2025, directive. In that order, the Court had transferred the investigation from the local police—whom it found were attempting to "cover up and influence the investigation"—to the CBI, with a clear mandate to arrest all officers responsible within one month.

Four months later, two of the accused, Sanjit Singh Mawai and Uttam Singh Kushwaha, remain at large. The Court's ire was particularly stoked by the revelation that the officers, who have been absconding since April 2025, were suspended only on Wednesday, a day after the bench had severely criticized the CBI for its inaction.

“Why yesterday? You say they are absconding since April. This means you are protecting them,” a visibly displeased Justice Nagarathna remarked. “Now this is really contempt.”

Justice R. Mahadevan echoed this sentiment, directly accusing the state of collusion. “You are colluding with them...You have been searching for them since April why you haven't suspended them?” he questioned.

A Saga of Institutional Failure and Judicial Impatience

The case revolves around the death of Deva Pardhi, a young Dalit man, who was arrested along with his uncle, Gangaram Pardhi, in connection with a theft case on July 14, 2024. He died shortly after in police custody, with his family alleging brutal torture. The police maintained he died of a heart attack. The initial investigation by the Madhya Pradesh police was deemed unsatisfactory by the Supreme Court, leading to the transfer to the CBI.

However, the CBI's performance has done little to assuage the Court's concerns. During Thursday's hearing, Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare, representing the CBI, detailed the agency's efforts to trace the absconding officers. He listed measures such as physical and digital surveillance, tracking financial transactions, monitoring vehicles at highway tolls, scrutinizing social media, and even announcing a ₹2 lakh reward for information.

The bench was wholly unconvinced, dismissing the efforts as insufficient. "What is the meaning of this? This is all eyewash," Justice Nagarathna stated. "That will not help. Stringent measures you have to take."

Glaring Loopholes Expose Potential Complicity

The petitioner's counsel, Advocate Payoshi Roy, dismantled the narrative of the officers being untraceable by pointing out critical inconsistencies. She informed the Court that one of the absconding officers had managed to physically sign and notarize an affidavit in Gwalior for an anticipatory bail application he had filed.

This revelation prompted a volley of questions from Justice Nagarathna, who asked how an individual could seek anticipatory bail when a direct Supreme Court order for his arrest was in effect. “Have you gone and spoken to the Advocate who appeared for him? Wasn't the state involved in the anticipatory bail? What did the government pleader advise? They could have arrested him,” she demanded.

Adding to the perception of state complicity, Roy highlighted that both officers had continued to receive their salaries until their suspension on Wednesday, despite being officially "absconding" for five months.

This drew a sharp rebuke from Justice Mahadevan. “This is contempt of order of Supreme Court by the state of Madhya Pradesh. Officers are not coming on duty for so many months and you keep silent?”

The State's Attempt to 'Wash Its Hands' Rebuffed

The Standing Counsel for Madhya Pradesh attempted to deflect responsibility, arguing that the investigation had been transferred to the CBI and the direction to arrest was issued to the central agency.

The bench swiftly rejected this contention. Justice Mahadevan noted that while the state's Home Secretary had been removed as a party in the contempt plea, the State of Madhya Pradesh itself was unequivocally a party to the original order. “There was no such order that only CBI can arrest. If an officer of your government is involved you cannot wash your hands of it,” he asserted.

Acknowledging the Court's grave concerns, the state's counsel requested time to take instructions. The Court, in response, re-arrayed the State of Madhya Pradesh as a respondent in the case and adjourned the matter to Friday morning.

“Okay we are not saying anything now. Let us see tomorrow what state of Madhya Pradesh will say,” Justice Nagarathna concluded, leaving the state with a clear, if unspoken, ultimatum. “Best thing you can say is 'we have arrested both of them.'”

Broader Implications for Rule of Law and Witness Safety

The hearing also underscored the Court’s deep concern for the safety of the sole eyewitness, the victim’s uncle Gangaram Pardhi, who remains in custody. In a hearing on Tuesday, the bench had warned the CBI, “We will not spare you if anything untoward happens to the sole witness and there is a second custodial event.” This followed allegations from the family's counsel that Gangaram had been brutally beaten in prison by officials in an attempt to coerce him into retracting his statement.

This case has evolved from a tragic custodial death into a significant test of the rule of law and the enforceability of the Supreme Court's orders. The bench's remarks suggest a judiciary unwilling to accept procedural excuses from state or central agencies, particularly when faced with evidence of potential collusion to shield law enforcement officers from accountability. The outcome of Friday's hearing will be closely watched by the legal community as a barometer of the Court's resolve to enforce its writ and protect the fundamental rights of citizens against state-perpetrated violence and subsequent cover-ups.