On September 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued strong censure to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for its failure to arrest two Madhya Pradesh police officers allegedly responsible for the custodial death of 26-year-old tribal youth Deva Pardhi.
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan was hearing a contempt petition filed by Pardhi’s mother, who alleged that the Court’s May 15, 2025 order—directing arrest of the accused officers within one month—had been flagrantly violated.
The bench expressed open frustration at the CBI’s explanations, remarking that despite repeated judicial directives, the premier investigating agency had failed to bring the accused to justice.
“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,” Justice Nagarathna observed, according to LiveLaw.
The Court also issued an extraordinary warning regarding the safety of Gangaram Pardhi, the deceased’s uncle and the sole eyewitness, who remains in judicial custody. The bench cautioned that any harm to him would invite strict action against the CBI.
“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. Please convey it,” Justice Nagarathna said.
As reported by LiveLaw, Justice Mahadevan added: “You also inform the jail authorities that nothing should happen to the eye witness, not even a scar.”
Why the Court was unconvinced
Throughout the hearing, the bench pressed the CBI on why the two key accused—Sanjiv Singh Mawai and Uttam Singh Kushwaha—had not been arrested, despite being declared proclaimed offenders.
The CBI counsel claimed that:
- A charge sheet was filed on September 15.
- Three officers had been arrested.
- Non-bailable warrants were issued against Mawai and Kushwaha.
- They were declared proclaimed offenders.
- Raids, digital surveillance, and property attachment proceedings were ongoing.
Yet, the Court remained dissatisfied. Justice Nagarathna retorted: “Absconding means protecting. That is the meaning you want to say. You know where they are. You are protecting.”
She contrasted this inaction with the CBI’s swiftness in other politically sensitive matters: “The CBI swoops down and arrests within seconds or minutes in other cases. But when it comes to its own people, you cannot arrest.”
As per the report of LiveLaw, Justice Mahadevan described the situation as “very unfortunate.”
The CBI counsel attempted to argue that the officers had been absconding since April 2025, well before the CBI took over. But this explanation did not impress the Court.
Petitioner’s counsel flags harassment of eyewitness
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel informed the Court that Gangaram Pardhi, the sole eyewitness, had been systematically harassed, assaulted, and falsely implicated in multiple cases after the custodial death incident.
Key submissions included:
- Gangaram was assaulted in custody after the anticipatory bail application of one of the accused officers was rejected.
- The prison staff acted in collusion with police, leading to Gangaram being hospitalised after beatings.
- Police deliberately filed case after case against him to keep him behind bars indefinitely.
- The CBI allegedly pressured the petitioner to withdraw the contempt petition.
Counsel warned that Gangaram’s life was at serious risk in custody.
Court’s response to allegations of harassment
The bench was scathing:
- It hinted that it may initiate contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh, the CBI Director, and the Additional Superintendent responsible for the investigation.
- It directed the CBI to file a detailed status report by September 25, including affidavits from officers handling the case.
- It clarified that if arrests were made within two days, contempt proceedings could be dropped.
While the Court suggested that the petitioner approach the High Court for additional protection orders for Gangaram, it made clear that ultimate responsibility for his safety lay with the authorities.
Background: May 15, 2025 judgment
The contempt petition arises from the landmark judgment of May 15, 2025, in which the Supreme Court castigated the Madhya Pradesh Police for shielding its own personnel in the custodial death of Deva Pardhi, a young tribal man from Guna district.
The earlier bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vikram Nath transferred the case to the CBI after finding systemic lapses, suppression of evidence, and institutional bias.
The incident:
- July 13, 2024: Police stormed Deva’s Haldi ceremony with 30–40 personnel, assaulted family members, and detained Deva and his uncle, Gangaram.
- They were taken to an older police station without CCTV, where Deva was subjected to brutal torture: beaten with ropes, doused with petrol, salt, and chili powder, suspended upside down, and suffocated with water.
- After three hours of torture, Deva collapsed and died.
Cover-up and retaliation:
- FIR No. 341/2024 was registered eight days later, omitting murder charges under Section 302 IPC (now BNS equivalents).
- Medical evidence was manipulated: post-mortem showed multiple abrasions but doctors attributed death to “vasovagal shock leading to heart failure.”
- Gangaram was illegally detained, denied bail, and implicated in at least four fabricated FIRs.
Supreme Court’s findings: The Court made significant observations:
- Deliberate suppression of FIR and dilution of charges.
- Absolute inaction for eight months, no arrests despite clear evidence.
- Medical tampering under police influence.
- Violation of nemo judex in causa sua (no one a judge in his own cause), necessitating CBI transfer.
- Recognition of witness intimidation against Gangaram.
- Directions for witness protection under the national scheme.
- Mandate that the accused be arrested within one month and CBI complete probe in 90 days of arrest.
The Court underscored that the case epitomised institutional camaraderie—a culture of shielding police officers even in custodial torture cases.
The detailed report may be read here.
Conclusion
The September 23 hearing highlights the widening gulf between the Supreme Court’s strong constitutional directives and the investigating agency’s actual performance.
- The CBI’s inability—or unwillingness—to arrest two officers raises questions of institutional complicity.
- The Court’s sharp warnings about a possible second custodial death of the eyewitness reflect judicial recognition of the grave risks faced by whistleblowers in police brutality cases.
- By threatening contempt against top bureaucrats and the CBI Director, the Court is signaling that institutional failure will attract direct accountability.
Ultimately, the Deva Pardhi case is not just about one custodial death. It is a litmus test of whether the Indian justice system can pierce the armour of police impunity and ensure witness protection, fair investigation, and accountability of State actors.
Related: