The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to appoint a senior officer to regularly monitor the investigation into the RAU’s IAS Study Circle case.
This decision came in response to a petition filed by Dalvin Suresh, the father of deceased student Nevin Dalvin, who had sought the replacement of the current investigating officer after his plea was dismissed by a trial court.
In his November 27 order, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma stated, “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. I consider that no further directions are required to be passed in the present petition.”
The court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns, emphasizing the importance of maintaining trust in the investigative process.
However, it upheld the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (ACJM) decision, which dismissed the petitioner’s plea for changing the IO.
Justice Sharma noted that while the magistrate cannot direct the CBI to register an FIR, the magistrate’s court does have the authority to monitor investigations once a case has been registered.
The petitioner had challenged the ACJM’s September 20, 2024, order dismissing his request for a senior CBI officer, not below the rank of Inspector General, to oversee the case. Advocate Abhijit Anand, representing the petitioner, argued that the investigation lacked impartiality and cited deficiencies such as the failure to seize the building’s site plan and CCTV footage.
He contended that a fair investigation is a fundamental right and that the Division Bench’s previous directives had not been fully implemented.
The CBI countered these claims, asserting that the investigation had been conducted in a fair and transparent manner under established procedures. The agency highlighted that the Secretary of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was already monitoring the case pursuant to directions from the Division Bench.
Additionally, the CBI has submitted two sealed status reports on the investigation’s progress to the Division Bench and emphasized its robust system of supervision by senior officers.
The High Court’s order aims to address the petitioner’s concerns while ensuring the investigation remains impartial and under proper supervision. It expressed hope that the CBI’s efforts would instill confidence in the complainant while adhering to established legal principles.
