On April 30, the Bombay High Court, visibly frustrated by the Maharashtra police’s non-compliance, came down hard on the State for dragging its feet in lodging an FIR in the Badlapur fake encounter case—despite repeated court orders. A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale had to threaten contempt proceedings against both the State Police and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to compel basic procedural compliance: the registration of an FIR into the custodial death of a young man shot by the police. On April 30, after prolonged delays and repeated non-compliance, the Maharashtra Police finally informed the Bombay High Court that an FIR would be registered in the Badlapur ‘fake encounter’ case by May 3.
The facts were damning. The deceased was in police custody. It was undisputed that he died of gunshot wounds inflicted by a police officer. A Magistrate’s inquiry had concluded earlier that the five policemen’s use of force was “unjustified” and noted that there were no fingerprints of the deceased on the weapon he was allegedly using. Yet, the SIT, formed by the court on April 7 under a senior, independent officer (Joint Commissioner Lakhmi Gautam), claimed it could not lodge an FIR because the victim’s father had declined to pursue the case—citing loss of faith in the system. The High Court had to remind the State that in a cognisable offence, the police are duty-bound to file an FIR suo moto. (Details of the April 7 order may be read here.)
“We all have some responsibilities. Do not let the faith of the public in the system erode,” Justice Mohite-Dere had sternly warned. Ultimately, after public embarrassment and judicial prodding, the State agreed to file an FIR by May 3, with a nominated officer from the SIT acting as complainant.
But just days later, on May 5, the Supreme Court dismantled the very framework that made the High Court’s intervention effective. Responding to a Special Leave Petition filed by the State, a bench led by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale removed Joint Commissioner Gautam from the supervisory role and handed the investigation back to the Director General of Police (DGP)—a move that effectively returns control of the case to the highest ranks of the same police force being accused.
May 5: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay High Court’s SIT directive, hands probe back to police hierarchy
In a move that raises serious concerns about police accountability in custodial and encounter deaths, the Supreme Court on May 5 significantly diluted a Bombay High Court order that had mandated a court-monitored probe into the alleged fake encounter in Badlapur involving five policemen. The High Court’s order, notable for its insistence on institutional independence, had directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of a specific officer—Lakhmi Gautam, Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The Supreme Court has now modified that order, transferring supervisory control of the SIT to the Director General of Police (DGP), effectively returning the investigation to the top of the same law enforcement hierarchy implicated in the matter.
The bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Maharashtra objecting to the High Court’s decision to name a specific officer to lead the investigation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State, insisted that the State had no objection to the formation of an SIT but took issue with the High Court’s direction to place the probe under Joint Commissioner Gautam. SG Mehta contended that the DGP should be the supervisory authority, citing procedural norms and the need for institutional oversight.
In its order, the Court noted that “The petitioners state of Maharashtra has approached this Court by filing SLP being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the order to the extent of constituting the SIT in the manner directed in para 32, that is, under the supervision of Lakhmi Gautam, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. It is submitted by learned SG Mr. Mehta that the State has no objection with the SIT being constituted, but let it be constituted under the supervision of DGP, having regard to the litigations made. Since the respondent-complaint has already withdrawn himself before the High Court, we don’t see any reason to issue notice to the Respondent.”
In response, Justice Trivedi suggested a compromise—allowing either the DGP or a nominee to head the SIT. Justice Varale went further, implicitly critiquing the High Court by observing that it should not have selected specific officers for the probe.
“Under such circumstances, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the allegations and concerns expressed by the High Court, we modify the order to the extent of constituting the SIT. We direct the SIT to be constituted by the DGP and officers selected by the DGP as deemed fit. The State shall do the needful in handing papers to DGP. We may clarify that the complaint, if he has any grievance, may approach the competent court that is the concerned magistrate or sessions court for appropriate relief. As a consequence, order dated April 30 or any order passed subsequently shall also stand modified. SLP stands disposed,” the order states.
What this line of judicial reasoning ignores, however, is precisely what necessitated the High Court’s intervention in the first place: a lack of faith in the Maharashtra police to investigate its own. The allegations involved custodial abuse and a suspected staged encounter. In such cases, courts have a duty to ensure an independent investigation that does not merely recycle command structures of the same force under scrutiny. By overturning a key portion of the High Court’s order—while ostensibly upholding the idea of an SIT—the Supreme Court has gutted the central safeguard meant to ensure impartiality.
The apex court’s order notes that since the complainant had already withdrawn from the High Court proceedings, there was no need to issue notice to him in the SLP. But this legal formality sidelines the broader public interest concern in the case—the right to life and protection against extrajudicial killings, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In its final direction, the Court modified the Bombay High Court’s order to state that the SIT shall be constituted by the DGP, who may select officers as deemed fit. The State is directed to hand over all relevant case documents to the DGP. It further notes that the complainant, if aggrieved, can approach the magistrate or sessions court for relief—an impractical suggestion, given that systemic police impunity is precisely what triggered the demand for a more credible probe.
This development reflects a broader trend of courts increasingly deferring to state institutions—even those implicated in serious misconduct—under the guise of procedural propriety. It signals judicial hesitancy to disturb the command structure of the police, even when there are credible allegations of rights violations by officers in that very structure.
By shifting the supervision of the SIT from a court-appointed officer to the DGP—who remains an administrative appointee of the State—the Supreme Court has diluted a rare instance of judicial courage shown by the Bombay High Court. The result is a probe that now risks becoming a bureaucratic formality rather than a meaningful pursuit of truth and accountability.
The complete order may be read here.
April 30: Maharashtra Police finally agrees to file FIR in the Badlapur fake encounter case
On April 30, after prolonged delays and repeated non-compliance, the Maharashtra Police finally informed the Bombay High Court that an FIR would be registered in the Badlapur ‘fake encounter’ case by Saturday, May 3. The assurance came during a hearing before a division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale, which had been monitoring the progress—or lack thereof—in the investigation into the death of a man in police custody.
The commitment to file the FIR was made by Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar after the court issued a stern warning to both the State Police and the court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT). The bench expressed serious displeasure at the continued defiance of its April 7 order, which had directed the constitution of an SIT to investigate the involvement of five police officers in what was strongly suspected to be a custodial killing disguised as an encounter. The court had emphasised that the case warranted a thorough and independent investigation, especially since it was an undisputed fact that the deceased had died from bullet wounds inflicted by a police officer while he was in custody.
Justice Mohite-Dere, during the earlier order, had observed that crimes of this nature not only affect the individual victim but also shake the public’s faith in the justice system and society at large. The bench had then directed that the SIT be led by Joint Commissioner of Police Lakhmi Gautam, who was authorised to pick his own team, to be headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP). The State CID was instructed to hand over all relevant documents and case materials to the SIT within 48 hours.
Despite these clear directions, during the April 25 hearing, the court was shocked to learn that the CID had failed to transfer the necessary documents. It was only after a full day of tense proceedings—and threats of contempt action—that the CID finally agreed to comply. However, by April 30, it emerged that the SIT had still not registered an FIR. Venegavkar attempted to explain that the SIT was waiting for the father of the deceased to lodge a formal complaint.
The bench firmly rejected this reasoning, reminding the prosecution that the father had already declined to file a complaint, citing delayed justice and emotional exhaustion. The judges reiterated that it was now the duty of the SIT to proceed suo moto—on its own authority—and file the FIR without further delay. They made it unequivocally clear that the court expected nothing less than a fair, impartial, and independent investigation.
Venegavkar then sought to delay matters further, stating that the SIT needed either a formal complaint or the inquiry documents relied upon by the Magistrate, who had already concluded that the force used by the police was excessive and unjustified. The Magistrate’s report also noted that the deceased’s fingerprints were not found on the weapon allegedly used to fire at the police and questioned the police’s claim of self-defence, describing it as “suspicious and unjustified.”
These arguments did not go down well with the bench. The judges forcefully reminded the prosecutor that the SIT was fully empowered to act independently and had no excuse not to lodge an FIR when a cognisable offence had clearly been committed. “We only want an independent, fair, and impartial probe not influenced by anyone,” Justice Mohite-Dere said, as per a report in the LiveLaw, warning that the credibility of the justice system was at stake.
According to this report, Justice Gokhale, clearly frustrated, stated, “These are very sorry state of affairs… You ought to have complied with our orders. We have no option but to initiate contempt proceedings.” Justice Mohite-Dere added that the situation was “sheer misuse of the court’s time.”
Following these sharp admonishments, Venegavkar requested a short adjournment to consult with senior police officers. After the break, he returned with the submission that an SIT officer, Mangesh Desai, would be appointed as the formal complainant. Based on his complaint, the FIR would finally be registered.
April 25: Bombay High Court slams Maharashtra CID for brazen defiance, warns of criminal contempt
On April 25, the Bombay High Court had come down heavily on the Maharashtra Police, particularly the State CID, for wilfully defying its April 7 order directing the transfer of investigation in the Badlapur ‘fake’ encounter case to a court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT). A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale strongly criticised the State for what it called a “brazen violation” of its orders, warning that such conduct amounted to criminal contempt of court.
Notably, on April 7, the High Court had constituted an SIT under the leadership of IPS officer Lakhmi Gautam, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and directed the State CID to hand over all investigation papers to the SIT within two days. Despite the clear directive, the CID failed to comply.
During the April 25 hearing, amicus curiae and senior advocate Manjula Rao informed the court that the CID had not yet transferred the case papers. The bench further learned from a letter sent by a State-constituted Judicial Commission to the High Court Registry that it too had not received the relevant documents, exposing the extent of non-compliance.
Visibly irate, Justice Gokhale warned the CID of potential criminal contempt proceedings, stating unequivocally that orders of the court must be followed irrespective of whether the State agrees with them. According to the report in the LiveLaw, she noted that although the State had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the April 7 order, there was no stay on the order, making it binding. “The rule of law must be followed,” she said. “Whether you agree with the order or not, you have to comply with it. Otherwise, we will be constrained to issue contempt of court proceedings.”
Justice Gokhale remarked that the CID’s refusal to act constituted a “fit case” for contempt proceedings. She emphasised that if the State was so aggrieved by the order, it should have urgently moved the Supreme Court for relief—something it had failed to do despite almost a month having passed since the order. “Speaking for myself,” she said as a report in the LiveLaw, “this is actually a brazen violation of our orders.”
Justice Mohite-Dere echoed the same concern. She noted that merely filing an SLP does not suspend the effect of a court’s directive and that State authorities cannot ignore binding orders on that basis. “What prevents you from transferring the papers?” she asked, as per LiveLaw’s report. “Is there any sanctity to our orders or not? Are you not in contempt?” She further held the SIT chief, Lakhmi Gautam, accountable for not informing the court about the non-compliance, adding that he too was potentially in contempt.
The court ordered both Gautam and a senior CID officer to appear post-lunch. When the hearing resumed, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar urged the bench to defer the matter until the Supreme Court heard the SLP. But Justice Gokhale remained unimpressed, saying: “We just cannot be waiting endlessly. You can always seek urgent listing in the apex court. It is not as if you have never done it before.”
Venegavkar then attempted to mitigate the situation by informing the court that Gautam had constituted his SIT team. However, Justice Mohite-Dere interjected sharply: “What is the use of constituting a team when they do not have the papers? What will they do—just sit around?”
Justice Gokhale added that the failure to hand over the documents was not only deliberate but also conveyed a dangerous message to the public. “What message are you giving to the citizens? That court orders are passed just for show?” she asked. “Either hand over the documents or face contempt.”
The court then directly questioned Prashant Waghunde, Superintendent of CID, Navi Mumbai, about why the documents hadn’t been handed over. Waghunde said he was acting under instructions from his superiors, but refused to name them. This evasiveness frustrated the bench further. As per the LiveLaw report, Justice Mohite-Dere said, “Your officer may be helpless, but we are not. We’re trying to protect him, but he refuses to name his superior. We didn’t want to make him a scapegoat, but he’s leaving us no choice.”
The matter was passed over multiple times to allow senior officers to reconsider. Finally, Prashant Burde, the Additional Director General of Police (State CID), appeared virtually. He apologised for the events that had transpired and assured the court that the documents would be handed over to the SIT. The judges, accepting this assurance, held back from initiating contempt proceedings—for now.
This hearing marks a critical juncture in the Badlapur ‘fake’ encounter case, highlighting serious concerns about institutional accountability, the enforcement of judicial orders, and the State’s duty to uphold the rule of law. The court’s intervention underscores its determination to ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied, especially in cases implicating custodial killings and potential abuse of power by law enforcement officers.
Background of the case
On April 7, 2025, the Bombay High Court had ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged fake encounter of a young man in Badlapur. The court observed that the case warranted a thorough investigation since it was undisputed that the deceased died of bullet wounds inflicted by a police officer while in custody. Emphasising that crimes committed by law enforcement impact not just individuals but the entire society, the bench warned against brushing aside the public’s legitimate interest in such investigations.
The SIT was to be led by Mumbai’s Joint Commissioner of Police, Lakhmi Gautam, who was granted the autonomy to handpick officers for the probe, which would be supervised by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP). The Maharashtra CID was directed to transfer all relevant documents to the SIT within two days.
The case originated from a petition filed by the parents of the accused in the 2024 Badlapur school sexual assault case, who was allegedly killed in a staged police encounter on September 23, 2024. The parents claimed that their son was murdered in custody.
During initial hearings, the High Court had criticised the State for its superficial investigation. The judges remarked that it was difficult to believe that the five police officers present in the van with the deceased were unable to restrain him and even suggested that the alleged shootout could have been avoided.
A significant development came in January 2025 when a Magistrate submitted a report under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The report squarely blamed the five police officers for using excessive and unjustified force. It pointed out that there were no fingerprints of the deceased on the firearm he allegedly used, and dismissed the police’s claim of acting in private defence as suspicious and unsubstantiated.
However, in a surprising turn, the deceased’s parents sought to withdraw their petition in February, citing repeated delays in the justice process. On February 6, they told the court they no longer wished to pursue the case. Notably, in December 2024, they had informed the bench that their pursuit of justice had led to their expulsion from their village, forcing them to live on the streets and beg for survival.
The very next day, on February 7, the High Court expressed shock after learning that a Thane sessions court had stayed the Magistrate’s report—one that had validated the parents’ claims and found substance in the allegations of a fake encounter. (Detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here)
Why the Bombay High Court’s orders were essential?
The Bombay High Court’s interventions in the Badlapur fake encounter case were not merely judicial oversight—they were a necessary assertion of constitutional accountability in the face of systemic police impunity. The facts were damning: the deceased was in police custody, died of bullet injuries, and a judicial inquiry found the police action unjustified. And yet, despite this, the Maharashtra Police showed blatant resistance to lodging an FIR—one of the most basic procedural requirements in any cognisable offence. It was only under sustained judicial pressure, including threats of contempt that the State relented.
The Court’s insistence on constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the direct supervision of a specific senior officer—Joint Commissioner Lakhmi Gautam—was a deliberate choice. It was designed to break the vicious cycle of internal shielding that often accompanies custodial violence cases, where the same force accused of wrongdoing is entrusted with investigating itself. The High Court recognised that institutional independence was not an abstract virtue but a practical necessity to ensure truth, justice, and public confidence in the rule of law. Its actions served as a critical check on executive inaction and obstruction.
The Supreme Court’s decision to dilute this framework—by handing the SIT back to the Director General of Police—undermines that very goal. The DGP remains the head of the police force in Maharashtra, which includes the accused officers. While technically adhering to the idea of an SIT, this move defeats its intended purpose: an independent and impartial investigation. It signals a return to hierarchical control, where influence and pressure may once again stifle accountability.
The Bombay High Court’s orders were essential because they embodied the judiciary’s duty under Article 21—to protect the right to life and dignity, especially when the violator is the State itself. In a country where custodial deaths and fake encounters are far too common and justice remains elusive, these orders were a rare moment of institutional resolve. Diluting them not only weakens the probe in the present case but sets a troubling precedent that may discourage lower courts from taking similarly bold steps in future cases of State excess.
Ultimately, the Bombay High Court did what the law demands: it held the State to its constitutional responsibilities. Its orders were essential because they confronted not just the facts of one death, but the structure of impunity that enables many more. The Supreme Court’s retreat from that framework is not just a legal recalibration—it risks becoming a moral failure.
Related: