Supreme Court Slams CBI for ‘Contemptuous’ Delay in MP Custodial Death Arrests, Demands Explanation

New Delhi – In a scathing indictment of procedural lethargy and non-compliance, the Supreme Court of India has severely criticized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Madhya Pradesh government for their protracted delay in arresting two police officers implicated in the 2024 custodial death of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi. The Bench, comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan, observed that the arrests only materialized under the looming threat of contempt charges, compelling the Court to demand a formal explanation for the months-long failure to execute its direct order.

The matter, heard on October 8, 2025, stems from a contempt petition filed by Hansura Bai, the victim's mother, alleging "willful disobedience" of the Court's May 15, 2025, directive. In that order, a three-judge Bench, citing a flawed local investigation, had transferred the probe to the CBI and explicitly mandated the arrest of the accused officers, Uttam Singh and Sanjeev Singh.

Despite this clear judicial command, the officers remained at large for nearly five months, prompting the contempt action. It was only after the Court signaled its intent to frame contempt charges that the CBI acted. Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare informed the Bench that Uttam Singh was arrested in Indore on September 27 and Sanjeev Singh was taken into custody in Shivpuri on October 5.

This belated compliance failed to assuage the Bench. Justice Nagarathna expressed profound displeasure, questioning the agency's inaction. "What happened all these days? Why couldn't you trace them? We had to almost frame contempt charges for you to act," she remarked. "This is not how a Supreme Court order should be implemented. There was a three-judge bench order to arrest them.”

The Court formally recorded its view that the enforcement was a direct result of judicial pressure. The order stated, “We find that the arrest has been made pursuant to the stringent and strong remarks made by this Court. The fact remains that there has been non-compliance of the directions of this court on 15.5.25 and it is only pursuant to the filing of this contempt petition that the arrest has taken place.”

The Labyrinth of Non-Compliance and Systemic Failures

The case timeline reveals a pattern of systemic inertia that drew the ire of the judiciary. Deva Pardhi, a tribal youth, died in the custody of Myana Police in Guna district in July 2024. The Supreme Court intervened on May 15, 2025, transferring the case to the CBI and ordering arrests within a month.

However, the months that followed were marked by inaction. Court records show that during a hearing on September 25, the Bench admonished the state government and the CBI for not only failing to arrest the officers but also for not even suspending them. The Court noted with dismay that the absconding officers were still drawing their salaries. This prompted a swift, albeit delayed, response, with the CBI informing the court that the officers were finally suspended on October 1.

Justice Mahadevan highlighted another point of legal defiance, questioning how the officers managed to seek pre-emptive legal protection against a direct Supreme Court order. “What departmental action has been taken against the two officers? They even filed for anticipatory bail despite this Court's clear order that they should be arrested,” he asked.

Allegations of Witness Harassment Raise Further Concerns

The proceedings also brought to light grave concerns regarding the treatment of the sole eyewitness to the custodial death, who is the victim's uncle. Advocate Payoshi Roy, representing the petitioner, informed the Bench that the eyewitness has been systematically targeted since the incident.

Roy submitted that ten First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed against the witness, leading to his arrest in seven separate cases, some of which were old cases previously registered against unknown persons. This pattern suggests a potential campaign to undermine the witness's credibility and obstruct the course of justice.

Furthermore, Advocate Roy highlighted that the witness, currently in jail, has been denied basic communication with his family. "We moved the jail authorities seeking permission for him to make phone calls to his family," she stated. "The response was that only if there is a court order, permission will be granted.”

This revelation drew a sharp rebuke from Justice Nagarathna. “He can apply for bail, but why should there be a need for a court order to allow a phone call? This is the attitude!” she exclaimed. The Bench immediately directed authorities to permit the witness limited access to speak with his family, with Justice Nagarathna observing, “Let the family members at least hear the voice of the person who is in custody.”

Court Demands Accountability and Adjourns for Explanation

Refusing to close the matter upon the news of the arrests, the Supreme Court has intensified its scrutiny. The Bench has directed both the CBI and the State of Madhya Pradesh to furnish detailed explanations justifying the delay. The affidavits must clarify why the Court's May 15 order was not complied with and why the arrests occurred only on September 27 and October 5.

In addition, the State has been ordered to submit a report on the departmental action initiated against the two officers. Justice Mahadevan underscored the Court's expectation for decisive measures, stating that there must now be “concrete action” against the erring officers.

The case, titled Hansura Bai v. Hanuman Prasad Meena , has been adjourned to November 6, 2025, when the Court will review the explanations provided by the state and the central agency. The outcome will be closely watched by the legal community, as it serves as a critical test of the judiciary's power to enforce its orders against state machinery and ensure accountability for alleged gross violations of human rights.