NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to appoint a senior officer to regularly monitor the investigation into the UPSC aspirants’ death case at RAU’s IAS Study Circle in Old Rajinder Nagar area.
The directive came in response to a petition filed by Dalvin Suresh, the father of one of the deceased students Nevin Dalvin, who had raised concerns over the fairness of the ongoing investigation.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, in his order dated November 27, emphasised the need for balanced oversight.
“In order to balance the rights, director CBI is requested to appoint a senior officer to have regular monitoring of the investigation being conducted by the CBI. This court hopes and trusts that the CBI will maintain the faith of the petitioner,” stated the court.
The court also acknowledged the petitioner’s apprehensions about the investigation’s integrity but refrained from issuing further directives. The petitioner had earlier approached the high court after his plea for replacing the investigation officer (IO) was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Rouse Avenue Courts.
The HC also remarked on the ACJM’s observation that magistrates cannot monitor investigations under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Justice Sharma clarified that while magistrates cannot compel the CBI to register an FIR, they possess the authority to oversee investigations once initiated by the CBI.
“This Court considers that this observation of the learned MM [Metropolitan Magistrate] may not be in accordance with the law. Once the CBI has registered the case and is conducting an investigation, the concerned Court will have all the power to monitor the investigation in line with established legal principles,” the court noted.
Advocate Abhijit Anand, representing Dalvin Suresh, argued that the investigation lacked thoroughness, citing critical gaps such as the failure to seize the building site plan and CCTV footage. He also alleged non-compliance with earlier high court directions.
“An impartial and comprehensive investigation is a fundamental right of the petitioner,” the counsel said, urging the court to consider appointing an independent officer of at least Inspector General rank.
The CBI refuted allegations of bias, maintaining that the investigation was conducted in a fair and lawful manner under close supervision.
It informed the court that two status reports had already been submitted to a division bench in sealed cover. Highlighting its internal monitoring mechanisms, the CBI assured the court that the investigation was being closely overseen by senior officials and monitored by the Secretary of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), following prior judicial directives.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Sharma said, “This Court is conscious of the genuine concerns of the petitioner but trusts that the CBI will uphold its commitment to justice.”