In a stern move, the Supreme Court has issued a final deadline to both the Madhya Pradesh government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): arrest two police officers, currently at large, by October 7, 2025. These officers are implicated in the custodial death of 25-year-old Deva Pardhi. The apex court warned that non-compliance would lead to contempt proceedings, necessitating the appearance of the State’s Additional Chief Secretary and the CBI’s investigating officer in court.
Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, presiding over the Bench, stressed that this marks the final chance for authorities to comply with its May 15 directive. That earlier order had transferred the investigation to the CBI and mandated the arrest of the accused officers within a month. The Court observed a distinct lack of progress in executing its previous instructions. Considering the upcoming vacation, the Bench ordered all respondents to ensure compliance and submit an affidavit by October 7, providing a copy to the petitioner’s counsel.
When the State’s lawyer requested that officials be exempted from personal court appearances, the Supreme Court responded, stating, “We are moving deliberately and carefully. However, should there be no compliance, be prepared for charges to be framed.” The judges further hinted at summoning the State’s Director-General of Police if the arrests are not completed by the set deadline.
Court Expresses Disappointment
The State’s counsel informed the court that Inspectors Sanjiv Singh Mawai and Uttam Singh Kushwaha, the accused officers, have been absconding since April and confirmed their salaries have been withheld since May. During a previous hearing, the Bench had sharply criticized the continued payment of salaries despite its arrest order, labeling it “aggravated contempt”.
Despite these claims, the Bench expressed its “unimpressiveness” with the State administration’s efforts. The Court declared, “We demand that this court’s order for the officers’ arrest be complied with. Whether you continue their salaries or suspend them is your concern. The authority and dignity of this court must be respected.”
Additional Solicitor-General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, representing the CBI, stated that the agency had carried out raids, declared the officers as proclaimed offenders, and established surveillance to locate them. The Bench, however, sharply countered, “If these two individuals were private citizens, their arrest would have happened swiftly. The fact that they are police inspectors seems to be the sole reason for your difficulty in apprehending them. That, in essence, is the core issue here.”
Justice Mahadevan further questioned the agency’s inability to locate the accused, especially since they had previously filed anticipatory bail applications in a sessions court. “You cannot find them even though they sought anticipatory bail?” he queried, adding, “Then submit an affidavit stating your helplessness and inability to apprehend them.”
Advocate Payoshi Roy, representing the petitioner, expressed bewilderment at how “the combined might” of both the CBI and the State administration had failed to secure the arrests. She further alleged that the sole eyewitness, the victim’s uncle Gangaram Pardhi, had been subjected to beating and intimidation while in judicial custody, in an an apparent attempt to force the family to retract their contempt petition.
The Bench had previously issued a stern warning to the CBI, stating that it would be held responsible if any harm came to the witness. The judges reiterated, “What is the condition of this witness? He has sustained a fracture even while in custody. We absolutely do not want another death in police custody.”
In a moment of frustration over the State’s continuous assertions of diligent effort, the Bench proposed terminating the officers’ employment. “Fire both officers; they will inevitably come forward,” Justice Nagarathna commented, noting that “they haven’t reported to duty since April.”
Consequences of Non-Compliance: Contempt Charges
The tragic events began in July 2024 when the deceased was apprehended alongside his uncle concerning a theft. While police initially attributed his death to a heart attack, his mother vehemently claimed he was tortured to death. On May 15, the Supreme Court, recognizing collusion between the State police and the accused, transferred the investigation to the CBI. Since that time, the two officers directly implicated in the custodial death have successfully evaded arrest.
Scheduling the matter for hearing post-vacation, the Bench unequivocally stated that senior officials would face personal accountability for any further failure to comply. The Court issued a stark warning: “Adhere to the directions of the nation’s highest court. Otherwise, we possess the means to enforce compliance. Should you fail, the repercussions under the contempt petition will ensue. We will proceed to frame charges.”