Introduction:
The case of Hansura Bai v. Hanuman Prasad Meena, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 594 of 2025 has once again brought into sharp focus the persisting issue of custodial violence, institutional accountability, and the failure of investigative agencies to bring perpetrators to justice in a timely manner. The matter was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan. The petitioner, Hansura Bai, is the mother of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi, who allegedly died due to torture while in police custody in Madhya Pradesh. Her petition highlights the failure of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to comply with the Court’s May 15, 2025 order directing the arrest of the police officers allegedly responsible for the custodial death of her son within one month. The respondents include senior state officials and the investigating agency. The case involves not only the tragic custodial death but also the alleged threats, harassment, and violence faced by the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, Deva’s uncle, who remains in judicial custody under controversial circumstances.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, through her counsel, raised serious allegations against both the state police and the CBI for their conduct in the investigation. She asserted that her son, Deva Pardhi, had been tortured to death by the police after being arrested in connection with a theft case, and the subsequent claim of the police that he died of a heart attack was a blatant cover-up. The petition emphasized that custodial deaths are among the gravest violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the state has a duty to ensure accountability and justice. She argued that despite the clear direction of the Supreme Court on May 15, 2025, mandating the arrest of the two primary accused officers within a month, the CBI had failed to execute the order. The officers—Sanjiv Singh Mawai and Uttam Singh Kushwaha—had remained at large since April 2025, and their proclaimed offender status and attachment proceedings were, according to her counsel, merely superficial actions that allowed them to evade accountability.
The petitioner’s counsel further pointed out that instead of ensuring protection for the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, the authorities had subjected him to continued harassment. Multiple FIRs had allegedly been filed against him after the custodial death case was registered, with the intent to keep him confined and dissuade him from testifying. Moreover, she informed the Court that Gangaram had been assaulted in custody, particularly after one of the accused officers’ anticipatory bail applications was rejected. She accused prison authorities of colluding with the accused officers to intimidate Gangaram and suppress the truth. The counsel also alleged that the CBI had pressured the petitioner to withdraw the contempt petition, thereby undermining the integrity of the judicial process. She underscored that the custodial death case had turned into a test case of institutional accountability, where the victim’s family and witness were systematically suppressed while the accused officers, shielded by the state machinery, continued to evade arrest.
In addition, the petitioner raised concerns about the unequal standards of law enforcement. She highlighted how the CBI, in cases involving politicians, businessmen, or dissenters, demonstrated remarkable efficiency and speed in executing arrests and conducting raids, but in this case, it appeared reluctant and lethargic. This selective application of investigative rigor, she argued, eroded public trust in the rule of law. She pleaded with the Court to take strict action against the CBI officers responsible for non-compliance with the earlier order, and to hold senior officials accountable through contempt proceedings. The petitioner emphasized that justice delayed was justice denied, and unless the Supreme Court intervened decisively, it would embolden law enforcement to perpetuate custodial violence with impunity.
Arguments Presented by the Respondents:
The CBI, representing the respondents, attempted to justify its inability to arrest the absconding officers. Counsel for the agency submitted that significant progress had been made in the investigation, including the filing of a charge sheet on September 15, 2025, against several accused, with three officers already arrested. However, the counsel admitted that the two prime accused officers, Mawai and Kushwaha, remained absconding despite extensive efforts. He explained that non-bailable warrants had been issued, the officers had been declared proclaimed offenders, and proceedings for the attachment of their properties were underway. The counsel also pointed out that raids had been conducted and digital surveillance initiated, yet the officers continued to evade arrest.
The CBI argued that the difficulty in tracing the officers was compounded by the fact that they had absconded even before the agency formally took over the case from the Madhya Pradesh Police, thereby complicating the investigative process. The counsel suggested that the agency was making every possible effort under the law, and its failure to apprehend the officers should not be interpreted as willful disobedience of the Court’s orders. The CBI also denied allegations of pressuring the petitioner to withdraw her contempt petition and objected to the insinuation that the agency was protecting the accused officers.
On the issue of the safety of Gangaram Pardhi, the CBI contended that the responsibility of ensuring his protection primarily lay with the state prison authorities and not the investigating agency. While acknowledging the Court’s concern, the CBI attempted to shift the accountability onto state officials for any alleged misconduct within the prison system. The counsel further urged the Court to consider the complex realities of law enforcement in cases where accused individuals, especially police officers, might have access to networks that help them remain underground.
The state’s counsel also emphasized that the custodial death had initially been investigated by the local police and that once the matter was handed over to the CBI, the state had limited role. They denied systematic harassment of Gangaram Pardhi and argued that the additional FIRs registered against him were based on separate incidents. They maintained that the state was committed to cooperating with the CBI and complying with the Supreme Court’s directions.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan was deeply dissatisfied with the explanations offered by the CBI. Justice Nagarathna, in particular, expressed strong disapproval of the agency’s failure to arrest the two officers despite a clear judicial mandate. She observed that the agency’s plea of helplessness could not be accepted, especially when in other cases the CBI was able to “swoop down and arrest within seconds or minutes.” She bluntly remarked that “absconding means protecting,” implying that the CBI’s inaction suggested complicity or deliberate protection of the accused. Justice Mahadevan described the situation as “very unfortunate,” highlighting the contradiction in the agency’s conduct.
The Court also focused extensively on the safety of Gangaram Pardhi, the sole eyewitness. Justice Nagarathna warned the CBI in unequivocal terms that if anything untoward happened to Gangaram in custody, the Court would hold the agency accountable. She stressed that there could not be a “second custodial death,” and instructed the CBI to communicate with the prison authorities to ensure his safety. Justice Mahadevan added that even a scar on Gangaram would be treated as a serious matter. The Court’s concern underscored the principle that witnesses in sensitive cases must be protected at all costs to uphold the integrity of the justice process.
The bench repeatedly pressed the CBI on why the proclaimed offender status and attachment proceedings had not yielded results. Justice Nagarathna pointedly noted that the officers’ continued evasion of arrest suggested that the agency knew their whereabouts but was protecting them. She rejected the CBI’s contention that the officers’ absconding prior to the agency’s involvement absolved it of responsibility, emphasizing that once the Supreme Court had transferred the investigation, the CBI was bound to ensure effective and prompt compliance.
The Court also expressed grave concern about the allegations of harassment faced by Gangaram Pardhi in custody. Although it suggested that the petitioner approach the High Court for specific directions on protection, it simultaneously held the CBI accountable to ensure that no harm came to him. The Court’s sharp remarks highlighted its recognition that custodial deaths and witness intimidation undermine the very foundations of justice and cannot be tolerated.
On the issue of contempt, the Court made it clear that non-compliance with its May 15 order would not be treated lightly. Justice Nagarathna stated that if the arrests were not made within the next two days, the Court would consider framing contempt charges against the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh, the Director of the CBI, and the Additional Superintendent responsible for the investigation. The Court directed the CBI to file a comprehensive status report by Thursday, detailing the steps taken to trace and arrest the two absconding officers. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 25, 2025.
While the Court stopped short of immediately initiating contempt proceedings, it held out the possibility of dropping them if the CBI complied with its order promptly. This conditional warning served as both a reprimand and an opportunity for the agency to redeem itself by fulfilling its obligations. The judgment reflects the Court’s balancing act of expressing stern disapproval while providing the investigating agency a final chance to demonstrate accountability.
The larger significance of this case lies in its spotlight on systemic failures in addressing custodial violence. The Supreme Court’s remarks underscored the continuing gap between legal protections guaranteed under the Constitution and the lived realities of vulnerable communities who often bear the brunt of custodial torture. The Court’s insistence on accountability at the highest levels of the investigative machinery also reflects its awareness that institutional complicity allows such injustices to persist. By holding the CBI and senior state officials personally responsible for compliance, the Court signaled its commitment to ensuring that justice is not derailed by bureaucratic inertia or deliberate protectionism.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s strong rebuke to the CBI in this case is a critical reminder of the judiciary’s role in checking state excesses and protecting fundamental rights. The outcome of the upcoming hearings will determine whether the stern words translate into concrete action, but the case has already reinforced the principle that custodial deaths cannot be brushed under the carpet, and that investigative agencies must be held to the highest standards of accountability.