In a significant order reinforcing the constitutional imperative of a fair and impartial criminal investigation, the Supreme Court has directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a fresh probe into the death of Salman Khan, the driver of former Congress MLA and Assembly candidate Kunwar Vikram Singh, who allegedly died after being run over during the 2023 Madhya Pradesh Assembly elections. While refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court held that the interests of justice warranted an investigation by an independent team headed by an IPS officer belonging to a cadre outside Madhya Pradesh. The order is legally significant not merely because it transfers the investigation to a newly constituted SIT, but because it reiterates a constitutional principle that has consistently guided Indian criminal jurisprudence that justice must not only be done but must also inspire public confidence through the fairness and credibility of the investigative process.
The matter came before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana while hearing a writ petition filed by the victim’s widow, Reziya, seeking transfer of the investigation. According to the petitioner, the deceased was the driver of Congress candidate Kunwar Vikram Singh during the 2023 Assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh. It was alleged that on the day of the incident, information had been received that supporters of a rival political candidate were distributing money to influence voters. The deceased and others were allegedly proceeding towards the spot when their vehicle was obstructed. The petition claims that during the ensuing events, the deceased was deliberately run over by a vehicle allegedly linked to supporters of the rival political candidate, resulting in his death, while another individual sustained injuries. The petitioner further alleged that despite repeated representations, the investigation failed to adequately examine crucial aspects of the incident because of political influence over the local investigative machinery.
During the hearing, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the investigation had overlooked material eyewitnesses who were willing to testify regarding the occurrence. It was argued that several persons had furnished sworn affidavits asserting that they had witnessed the incident, yet their statements were never formally recorded by the investigating agency. Bhushan also questioned the reliance placed by the police on statements of certain individuals allegedly projected as relatives of the complainant despite their having no familial connection with the victim’s family. The Bench expressed concern over these submissions, with Chief Justice Surya Kant observing that disclosure of witnesses’ identities in open court might expose them to unnecessary risks and indicating that such statements should be appropriately examined by an independent investigating team. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while addressing the State’s counsel, succinctly remarked that the foremost obligation of the investigating agency was “to instill confidence” in the fairness of the investigation a remark that ultimately became the defining principle underlying the Court’s order.
Opposing the plea, the State of Madhya Pradesh maintained that the investigation had been conducted fairly, independently and in accordance with law. It was submitted that the investigation had reached an advanced stage and that the allegations of bias were unfounded. The Court, however, considered that given the nature of the allegations and the apprehensions expressed regarding the existing investigation, it would be appropriate, in the interest of justice and fair play, to entrust the matter to a newly constituted Special Investigation Team. Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to constitute an SIT within two days comprising senior IPS officers, with the additional safeguard that the officer heading the SIT should belong to a cadre other than Madhya Pradesh and that none of the members should belong to the district where the investigation had originally been conducted. The Court further directed that the SIT should independently examine all evidence, including the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses, without being influenced by the conclusions already reached by the earlier investigating agency, and complete the investigation within two months.
The order is significant because it revisits one of the most fundamental principles governing criminal investigations in India the right to a fair investigation as an inseparable component of the guarantee of fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution. Over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a criminal trial cannot be fair unless the investigation preceding it is equally impartial, objective and free from external influence. In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Supreme Court observed that a tainted investigation strikes at the root of criminal justice and may itself become a ground for constitutional intervention. Likewise, in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762, the Court recognised that constitutional courts possess the power to order further investigation, fresh investigation or reinvestigation in exceptional circumstances where the interests of justice so demand. These judgments have repeatedly emphasised that the object of criminal investigation is not to secure conviction at all costs but to discover the truth through an unbiased process.
The jurisprudential foundation for judicial transfer of investigations is rooted in the Supreme Court’s recognition that public confidence constitutes an indispensable element of the administration of criminal justice. In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, a Constitution Bench held that constitutional courts possess the authority under Articles 32 and 226 to direct investigation by specialised agencies whenever such intervention becomes necessary to protect fundamental rights or preserve public confidence in the justice delivery system. At the same time, the Court cautioned that such extraordinary powers must be exercised sparingly because investigation ordinarily remains the exclusive domain of the statutory investigating agency. The present order follows that constitutional approach. The Supreme Court has not substituted itself for the investigating agency, nor has it pronounced upon the guilt or innocence of any individual. Rather, it has sought to ensure that the investigation itself inspires confidence among all stakeholders before any final conclusions are drawn.
Another noteworthy aspect of the order is the Court’s insistence that the SIT be headed by an IPS officer from outside the State cadre. Indian courts have increasingly adopted such safeguards in cases involving allegations of political influence or institutional bias. The rationale is not to cast aspersions upon the integrity of local officers but to eliminate any reasonable apprehension regarding external influence over the investigative process. Similar considerations informed judicial interventions in matters such as the Vyapam investigations, the Best Bakery case, and several other politically sensitive prosecutions where public confidence became inseparable from the credibility of the investigative mechanism itself. The present order therefore reflects an institutional preference for ensuring objective independence rather than implying any predetermined conclusion regarding the conduct of the original investigation.
From a constitutional perspective, the decision reinforces the proposition that criminal investigation is not merely an executive function but a constitutional responsibility. While the police undoubtedly possess statutory authority to investigate offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and other criminal laws, such authority remains subject to constitutional scrutiny where allegations arise regarding fairness, impartiality or procedural irregularity. Judicial intervention in exceptional cases serves not to undermine investigative agencies but to strengthen institutional legitimacy by ensuring that criminal justice remains free from actual or perceived external influence.
The Supreme Court’s order also highlights the delicate balance constitutional courts must maintain while exercising supervisory jurisdiction. Excessive judicial interference in investigations risks encroaching upon executive functions and disrupting the separation of powers. Conversely, judicial inaction in cases involving credible allegations of investigative bias may erode public faith in the justice delivery system. The present order reflects a carefully calibrated approach. The Court neither directed immediate transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation nor accepted the petitioner’s allegations at face value. Instead, it adopted a middle path by constituting an independent SIT with clearly defined institutional safeguards while expressly clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations. Such judicial restraint preserves the presumption of innocence while simultaneously protecting the integrity of the investigative process.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s intervention is significant not because it determines criminal liability, but because it reiterates that the legitimacy of the criminal justice system depends as much upon the fairness of investigation as upon the correctness of the eventual verdict. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the search for truth cannot be compromised by procedural deficiencies or institutional apprehensions. Whether the fresh investigation ultimately confirms or disproves the allegations remains a matter for the SIT to determine on the basis of evidence. What the Supreme Court has ensured, however, is that such determination will emerge from an investigation conducted under circumstances that command public confidence. In an era where allegations of political influence frequently accompany high-profile criminal investigations, the decision serves as an important reaffirmation that constitutional courts remain the ultimate guardians of procedural fairness, institutional accountability and the integrity of the criminal justice process.
