The Bombay High Court has been urged to summon Maharashtra’s Home Minister, Devendra Fadnavis, to explain why the state has failed to frame binding guidelines for custodial death investigations, despite repeated judicial directions. The petition, filed by Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi, mother of Somnath Suryawanshi, who died in Parbhani District Prison on December 15, 2024, alleges a “continuing legal vacuum” following magisterial inquiries under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Represented by advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Hitendra Gandhi, M.B. Sandanshiv, and Siddharth Y. Shinde, the petitioner states that while BNSS provides for a magisterial inquiry into deaths in custody, it is silent on mandatory steps after such inquiries conclude that the death was “unnatural or homicidal”.
“In Somnath’s case, both the expert panel at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and the learned Magistrate have already held that the death was due to ‘shock following multiple injuries’ and was homicidal in nature; however, in the absence of clear statutory rules or policy, the authorities have oscillated between fact-finding ‘enquiries’, shifting medical opinions and selective reliance on circulars, instead of promptly registering and investigating a case of custodial murder,” the application said.
Earlier, on September 12, 2025, a Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar had expressed strong reservations about the State’s approach. The court noted that only a letter had been issued to the jail authority for CCTV footage instead of immediate seizure. “In fact, it could have been immediately seized, or CCTV footage could have been collected by visiting the jail,” the Bench observed, directing that the footage be seized within two days.
Also read: Maharashtra Cabinet approves compensation policy for custodial deaths
The Judges also made it clear that interim circulars cannot substitute for law, “Any circular cannot take the form of guidelines. Here we cannot wait for the action from Home Department in infinity.” The Court stayed the effect of the CID circular dated July 16, 2025, and directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to file an affidavit specifying when proper guidelines would be framed.
In compliance, Principal Secretary Anup Kumar Singh filed an affidavit on October 3, annexing Government Circular dated September 30, 2025. The State claimed this circular lays down procedure for custodial death investigations. However, the petitioner argues that this too falls short of the court’s mandate.
“The Respondent’s affidavit incorrectly asserts ‘compliance’ despite the Court’s clear pronouncement that a circular cannot take the place of law and cannot cure the statutory vacuum,” the application said. It added, “Departmental circulars issued by the permanent Executive cannot constitutionally substitute for policy or fill a legal vacuum.”
The plea seeks directions declaring both circulars, dated July 16 and September 30, as non-compliance, and calls for a time-bound statutory policy framed by the elected Executive. The proposed framework should mandate immediate registration of FIR after a magisterial finding of unnatural death, independent investigation, preservation of CCTV and forensic material, suspension of delinquent officers, and periodic reporting to the jurisdictional court. It also urges that the Home Minister personally appear before the Bench to explain the State’s position and timeline for curing the policy gap. Until such guidelines are notified, the petitioner requests that investigations follow directions issued by the High Court and principles laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa.
“Unless this vacuum is addressed at the policy and legislative level, every future custodial death will remain trapped in the same grey zone where a Magisterial Inquiry records unnatural death, yet there is no clear, binding mandate on the police about immediate registration of FIR, arrest and suspension of accused officers, preservation of CCTV/forensic material, or court-monitored investigation,” the application said, adding that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 will remain “perpetually at stake.”
The matter, which earlier saw the formation of a Special Investigation Team headed by a Special Inspector General of Police, is expected to come up for further hearing later this month.
Published – December 11, 2025 08:09 am IST
