A view of the Supreme Court of India on August 18, 2025. Image for the purpose of representation only.

| Photo Credit: Deepika Rajesh

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 25, 2025) castigated the Madhya Pradesh government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for failing to arrest two police officers allegedly responsible for the July 2024 custodial death of 24-year-old Deva Pardhi. The court said that the failure to comply with its May 15 directions amounted to “aggravated contempt”.“More than four months have passed, and the direction of the court has not been complied with. It appears that you are protecting the officers,” a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan told the State’s counsel.The court was hearing a contempt plea filed by the kin of the deceased, alleging wilful disobedience of the May 15 order that had transferred the investigation from the Madhya Pradesh Police to the CBI. The State police had earlier been implicated in attempts to conceal facts and compromise the probe. While handing over the case to the CBI, the Supreme Court had explicitly directed that “the police officials found responsible for the custodial death shall be arrested forthwith and not later than a period of one month.”Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Payoshi Roy submitted that despite the court’s categorical direction, the State government had continued to disburse salaries to the accused officers. Taking strong exception, Justice Nagarathna asked the State’s counsel, “You were impleaded as a party in the [May 15] order. This is contempt of the order of the Supreme Court by the State government. How can the State sanction salaries for persons who were directed to be arrested?”When the State’s counsel contended that, as per the order, the responsibility for making the arrests lay solely with the CBI, Justice Mahadevan remarked, “You are part of the State administration. When a grave crime takes place, how can you wash away your responsibility?”Earlier, on September 23, the Bench had cautioned that it would frame contempt charges against the State’s Chief Secretary, the CBI Director, and the Additional Superintendent responsible for the investigation. It then sought a status report and said it might not proceed with the contempt case if arrests were made within two days.‘Efforts are eyewash’Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare, appearing for the CBI, informed the court that the two officers had been suspended a day earlier and that a cash reward of ₹2 lakh each had been announced for information about their whereabouts. He added that their financial transactions are being tracked and their vehicles are being monitored at highway toll plazas.However, the Bench remained unconvinced. “Why yesterday? You say they have been absconding since April. What is the meaning of this? All your efforts are eyewash,” the judges remarked, directing the CBI to immediately contact the State’s Director-General of Police to ascertain the officers’ whereabouts.The petitioner’s counsel further informed the court that the accused officers had even moved anticipatory bail applications before a sessions court in Indore. Expressing strong reservations, Justice Mahadevan told the State counsel, “You are protecting the officers who were directed to be arrested. How can they have the audacity to file anticipatory bail pleas against an order of the Supreme Court?”The Bench indicated that it was a fit case to summon the Chief Secretary to appear in person at the next hearing to explain the lapses. “We will ask for the presence of the Chief Secretary so that we can directly convey what the order of the Supreme Court meant and what he was meant to do,” it observed.However, the matter was adjourned on repeated requests of the State’s counsel, who sought time to take instructions and clarify why salaries continued to be disbursed to the accused officers. The court directed that the case be listed at the top of the board on September 26 .On July 15, 2024, the deceased, a resident of Bilakhedi, was taken into custody by Guna police in connection with an alleged theft of ₹8 lakh. Later that night, his family was informed by the district hospital that a “Pardhi youth” had been brought in for post-mortem. On arrival, they discovered that he had died in custody.The police initially claimed that he had died of cardiac arrest. His mother subsequently approached the Supreme Court, leading to the May 15 order directing a CBI probe.The agency has since arrested three persons in connection with the probe, while two senior police officers identified as directly responsible for the custodial death remain at large. Published - September 25, 2025 06:55 pm IST