“No Police-Involved Custodial Death Shall Be Investigated by the Same Police” – Supreme Court’s New Mandate in Hansura Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 711)

1. Introduction

On 15 May 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. delivered a landmark judgment that reshapes the investigative landscape for custodial deaths in India. The appellants—mother and aunt of the deceased Deva Pardhi—sought:

• Transfer of investigation of FIR No. 341/2024 (custodial death) from the local police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
• Release on bail of the lone eye-witness, Gangaram Pardhi (uncle of the deceased), who was allegedly being framed in multiple fabricated cases.

The High Court had earlier declined to grant bail and refused transfer of investigation, prompting the present appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision pivots on two principal issues:

1. Whether an investigation into a custodial death allegedly caused by local police can remain with the same police force.
2. What safeguards must the judiciary impose to protect key witnesses and the integrity of the investigation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Mehta, J. concurring with Nath, J.) allowed the appeal and held:

1. Mandatory Transfer: Investigation of FIR No. 341/2024 is to be transferred to the CBI forthwith. The CBI must:
   • Register a Regular Case (RC) immediately.
   • Arrest the accused policemen within one month.
   • Complete investigation within 90 days of arrest.
2. Witness Protection: State’s Principal Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police must ensure round-the-clock protection to eye-witness Gangaram Pardhi both in custody and, if enlarged on bail, outside prison.
3. Bail Liberty: Gangaram Pardhi is permitted to directly move the High Court for bail in all pending cases, which the High Court must decide expeditiously considering the Supreme Court’s observations.
4. Guiding Principle: In custodial-death cases where local police are implicated, the maxim nemo judex in causa sua automatically activates a rebuttable presumption of bias, necessitating transfer to an independent agency.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court relied significantly on its earlier jurisprudence:

• Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79 – Recognised that investigations by a force that is “allegedly privy to the dispute” undermine public confidence; ordered CBI transfer in a fake encounter case.
• Mohd. Anis v. Union of India (1994 Supp (1) SCC 145) and R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. (1994 Supp (1) SCC 143) – Both directed CBI probes where local police were accused, anchoring the concept that only an independent agency can guarantee credibility.

By quoting at length from these decisions, the Court anchored its ruling in an unbroken chain of judicial thought that prioritises “impeachable credibility” of investigations over institutional convenience or federal comity.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

• Nemo judex in causa sua – The Court declared that when policemen are the accused, the police as an institution cannot investigate itself; continuing with local police violates natural justice.
• Failure of Initial Investigation – Eight months after FIR, no arrest was made; post-mortem was allegedly manipulated; witness intimidation was ongoing. These “objective indicators” of bias made the case fit for transfer.
• Public Trust & Constitutional Duty – The Court invoked Articles 21 (right to life) and 14 (equality before law), asserting that a fair, impartial probe is an inalienable part of the right to life, especially when the life has been extinguished in State custody.
• Time-bound Directions – Imposing a one-month arrest deadline and a 90-day investigation period, the Court sought to pre-empt investigative lethargy, a first in custodial death jurisprudence.
• Witness Protection – Recognising the fragile position of eye-witnesses, the Court tethered the responsibility directly to the highest executive officers, thereby ensuring accountability.

3.3 Impact

The ruling is poised to have broad ripple effects:

• Automatic Trigger for CBI Transfer – Though couched in discretionary language, the Court’s formulation effectively sets a default rule: if local police are prima facie involved in a custodial death, another agency (CBI/SIT) must take over unless exceptional reasons exist.
• Time-bound Investigation Standards – Lower courts and investigative agencies now have a benchmark (one month for arrest, 90 days for completion) that may become a template in future directions.
• Reinforcement of Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – By making State officials personally responsible, the decision strengthens the otherwise under-enforced witness-protection regime.
• Interplay with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – The case is among the first Supreme Court decisions applying substantive provisions of the new penal code (sections 105, 115, 120, etc.), offering interpretive guidance.
• Policing Reforms Conversation – The judgment will likely fuel legislative and policy discussions on independent investigative bodies for all police-involved deaths, akin to the United Kingdom’s IOPC or the U.S. DOJ civil-rights division.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Custodial Death: A death that occurs while a person is in police (or judicial) custody; invokes a higher duty of care for the State.
• Nemo judex in causa sua: A Latin maxim meaning “no one should be a judge in his own cause,” ensuring impartial adjudication and investigation.
• CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation): India’s premier investigative agency, functioning under the DSPE Act, 1946; often asked to investigate cases where impartiality of local police is doubtful.
• Vasovagal Shock: A medical term for a sudden drop in heart rate and blood pressure leading to fainting; here controversially cited as the cause of death despite multiple external injuries.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: The proposed successor to the Indian Penal Code; the judgment references its sections, signalling judicial readiness to apply the new code.

5. Conclusion

Hansura Bai crystallises a vital doctrine: whenever the police are in the dock for custodial violence resulting in death, faith in justice requires that a different, independent agency must investigate. By coupling this doctrine with strict timelines, personal accountability for witness protection, and bail facilitation for harassed eye-witnesses, the Supreme Court has advanced the jurisprudence of custodial justice to a new, more robust plane.

The decision not only shields the integrity of individual investigations but also reinforces systemic safeguards against State excesses, underscoring the Court’s role as sentinel on the qui vive for fundamental rights. Future litigants and courts will likely cite Hansura Bai as the go-to authority whenever allegations of police-engineered cover-ups surface, marking it as a milestone in India’s long struggle to eradicate custodial brutality.