SC raps MP govt for shielding cops in custodial death case
The Supreme Court criticized Madhya Pradesh for protecting absconding officers in a custodial death case, issuing contempt notices to top officials.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Madhya Pradesh government for “colluding with” two absconding police officers accused in the custodial death of a 24-year-old youth, issuing contempt notice to the state’s additional chief secretary and demanding an explanation on how the inspectors continued to receive their salaries until just a day ago, despite being on the run since April.
A bench of justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan expressed shock that despite its May 15 order transferring the probe from the state police to the CBI and directing immediate arrest of the accused, the officers remained at large while the state only suspended them on Wednesday -- five months later.
“Why are you protecting them? They were absconding and not working for the last five months. The order was issued in May and you suspended them only yesterday. This is unacceptable. This itself is contempt of court. We will issue notice of contempt to the chief secretary and the additional chief secretary. Let this case be an example for all states,” the bench warned.
The bench questioned the state’s counsel on why no action was taken for months despite the accused, inspectors Sanjiv Singh Mawai and Uttam Singh Kushwaha, failing to attend office since April. “You did not suspend them even after they stopped attending office? For any other official you would have issued a memo, taken disciplinary action. Why nothing against them? You are colluding with the officials. If you were really willing, you could produce them before this court in no time,” it observed.
The court reminded the state that salaries were being paid to the officers until yesterday despite its directions to arrest them. “When an inspector is not attending office for four months, what do you usually do? Keep quiet? Keep paying salary? What is your duty as a state? How can you wash off your hands?” the bench asked.
The bench said the conduct amounted to aggravating contempt. “This is a clear case of contempt. You are protecting officers who were ordered to be arrested. Even the witness in the case faces threat to his life now. You should have suspended them on day one,” it said, summoning the state’s top officials on Friday.
The court also pulled up CBI for failing to apprehend the absconding policemen despite non-bailable warrants, proclamation notices and surveillance. “CBI cannot express helplessness. CBI is supposed to be a strong body,” the bench said.
Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, representing CBI, submitted that raids had been conducted, the accused declared proclaimed offenders, and surveillance was ongoing to ascertain their whereabouts. The bench, however, retorted that CBI must do everything in its power to arrest the two.
On Tuesday, the bench warned the agency it would not be spared if anything happened to the victim’s uncle, Gangaram Pardhi, the sole eyewitness, who remains in judicial custody but suffered a collarbone fracture. “What about the condition of the witness? He has suffered a fracture despite being in custody. We do not want another custodial death,” the court reiterated on Thursday.
The case arises from the custodial death of 24-year-old Deva Pardhi in Madhya Pradesh earlier this year. He was arrested along with his uncle Gangaram in a theft case. While the police claimed Pardhi died of a heart attack, his mother alleged he was tortured to death.
In May, the Supreme Court transferred the investigation to CBI after observing that the state police had attempted a cover-up and influenced the probe. The two accused officers have since remained absconding.
With Thursday’s strong observations, the bench made clear that it would personally hold top state officials accountable for the failure to execute its orders. “Let the chief secretary and the additional chief secretary come to this court. We will make them understand what the order of this court meant and how it was to be implemented,” the bench said.
The state’s counsel, however, requested the bench to give him a day to come back with instructions, following which the matter was posted to Friday.
