The Bombay High Court has once again brought the Disha Salian death case under intense judicial scrutiny after expressing dissatisfaction with the progress of the investigation while hearing a petition filed by her father seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death. During the proceedings, the Court questioned the Mumbai Police regarding the prolonged delay in bringing the inquiry to its logical conclusion and sought an explanation as to why a final report had not yet been filed despite the passage of considerable time. The hearing marks another important development in a case that has remained the subject of sustained public attention since 2020, while simultaneously raising larger constitutional questions regarding the scope of judicial intervention in criminal investigations, the obligation of investigating agencies to conduct fair inquiries, and the legal threshold for directing registration of an FIR in matters where an Accidental Death Report (ADR) had earlier been registered.
The proceedings before the High Court arise out of a petition instituted by Satish Salian, father of the deceased, who has challenged the manner in which the original inquiry into his daughter’s death was conducted. The petition seeks registration of a regular criminal case and a fresh investigation, contending that the earlier inquiry failed to adequately examine various aspects which, according to the petitioner, warrant investigation as cognizable offences. The petition also seeks judicial directions regarding further investigation by an independent agency. These allegations, however, remain matters to be adjudicated, and no judicial finding has yet been returned accepting or rejecting the factual assertions made by the petitioner.
During the hearing, the Bombay High Court focused primarily on the procedural progress of the investigation rather than the merits of the allegations. The Bench questioned the Mumbai Police regarding the delay in submitting a final report and observed that investigative authorities cannot indefinitely keep proceedings pending without arriving at a legally sustainable conclusion. The Court reportedly directed the authorities to proceed on the basis of the material already available on record and explain the reasons for the continued pendency of the investigation. Such observations do not amount to judicial endorsement of the allegations made in the petition; instead, they reflect the constitutional expectation that criminal investigations must proceed with reasonable diligence and transparency.
The case presents an important legal distinction between an Accidental Death Report (ADR) and a First Information Report (FIR) under criminal law. An ADR is generally registered when the circumstances surrounding a death appear unnatural or suspicious but do not, at that stage, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It enables the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the cause of death under the statutory framework governing unnatural deaths. An FIR, on the other hand, is registered when information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence requiring a full-fledged criminal investigation. The transition from an ADR to an FIR depends not upon public speculation or media attention but upon the existence of legally sufficient material indicating commission of an offence recognised under criminal law.
The proceedings therefore revisit a recurring issue in criminal jurisprudence when should constitutional courts direct registration of an FIR after an earlier inquiry has concluded without criminal prosecution? Indian law does not prohibit further investigation merely because an initial inquiry has been completed. The Code of Criminal Procedure (and now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) recognises that fresh material, credible evidence or previously unavailable information may justify reopening or expanding an investigation. However, such power must be exercised carefully because criminal law simultaneously protects the interests of victims, the rights of suspects and the integrity of investigative institutions.
Another significant legal dimension emerging from the hearing concerns the constitutional obligation of a fair investigation. The Supreme Court has consistently held that fair investigation forms an integral component of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. A fair investigation is not merely an obligation owed to the accused but equally to the victim, the complainant and society at large. Constitutional courts therefore possess limited supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that investigations are neither arbitrary nor unduly delayed. At the same time, courts ordinarily refrain from directly conducting investigations themselves, recognising that investigation remains primarily the statutory function of the police.
The High Court’s observations also highlight the distinction between judicial supervision and judicial investigation. Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution do not ordinarily evaluate disputed questions of fact at the preliminary stage. Instead, they examine whether statutory authorities have discharged their legal duties in accordance with constitutional standards. Thus, when the High Court questions delays or seeks explanations from the investigating agency, it does not thereby express any opinion regarding the truthfulness of the allegations or the culpability of any individual. Judicial oversight in such cases is directed towards ensuring procedural fairness rather than determining criminal guilt.
The proceedings are particularly significant because they occur against the backdrop of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Maharashtra Government to examine aspects of the case. The existence of an SIT demonstrates that the State itself considered it appropriate to undertake a more detailed examination of the available material. However, the petitioner argues that such inquiry should culminate in registration of a regular criminal case, whereas the State has maintained that investigation must proceed in accordance with law and available evidence. The High Court’s intervention therefore seeks to ensure that the investigative process reaches a legally sustainable conclusion instead of remaining indefinitely inconclusive.
The hearing also revives an important constitutional principle concerning the rights of victims and their families. Modern criminal jurisprudence increasingly recognises that victims possess a legitimate interest in fair investigation and meaningful participation in criminal proceedings. While criminal prosecution ultimately remains a matter between the State and the accused, constitutional courts have repeatedly held that the concerns of victims cannot be ignored where allegations suggest investigative deficiencies. Nevertheless, victim participation does not dilute the equally fundamental presumption of innocence enjoyed by persons against whom allegations are made.
From an institutional perspective, the case demonstrates the delicate balance courts must maintain in high-profile criminal matters. Cases attracting widespread media attention often generate competing public narratives that may extend far beyond the evidentiary material available before the investigating agency. Constitutional courts therefore proceed with considerable restraint, ensuring that judicial orders are founded exclusively upon legal principles and the material placed on record rather than public discourse. The Bombay High Court’s observations during the present hearing exemplify this cautious approach by focusing upon procedural accountability instead of speculative conclusions.
The proceedings further underscore the importance of reasoned investigation in criminal law. Whether an investigation ultimately concludes that no cognizable offence has occurred or results in prosecution, the conclusion must emerge from objective analysis supported by evidence. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that investigative agencies owe a duty not merely to prosecute but also to arrive at the truth. Consequently, unexplained delays, prolonged uncertainty or absence of conclusive reports may legitimately attract judicial scrutiny where constitutional rights are implicated.
The matter also raises broader questions concerning judicial control over investigative delay. Indian constitutional jurisprudence increasingly recognises that justice delayed in investigation may affect both victims and those against whom allegations are made. Delayed investigations risk loss of evidence, fading witness memory and erosion of public confidence in the criminal justice system. The High Court’s insistence upon expeditious completion of the process therefore reflects a wider constitutional concern that criminal investigations should proceed within a reasonable time consistent with fairness and due process.
Importantly, the present proceedings should not be misunderstood as judicial findings on the merits of the allegations contained in the petition. The High Court has not directed registration of an FIR against any particular individual at this stage, nor has it recorded findings regarding criminal liability. The observations presently remain confined to ensuring accountability in the investigative process and requiring the authorities to explain the status of their inquiry. Any determination regarding criminal culpability can arise only after investigation is completed and competent courts examine admissible evidence in accordance with law.
The hearing also illustrates the continuing relevance of the Supreme Court’s landmark jurisprudence in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, where the Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory where information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, while recognising that limited preliminary inquiry may be appropriate in specific categories of cases before such registration. The present dispute essentially concerns whether the available material has reached the statutory threshold requiring conversion of an earlier accidental death inquiry into a regular criminal investigation a question that continues to engage judicial consideration.
Ultimately, the Bombay High Court proceedings represent far more than a procedural hearing in a single criminal case. They reaffirm a broader constitutional principle that public confidence in the criminal justice system depends as much upon the fairness and transparency of investigations as upon their eventual outcome. Whether the investigation ultimately confirms the earlier conclusion or leads to a different legal course remains a matter for the competent authorities and the courts to determine on the basis of evidence. At this stage, however, the High Court’s intervention underscores that constitutional courts will not permit serious criminal inquiries to remain indefinitely unresolved without adequate explanation, while simultaneously preserving the fundamental principles of due process, presumption of innocence and judicial neutrality. In that sense, the proceedings reaffirm that the rule of law is served not by speculation or public sentiment, but by an investigation that is thorough, impartial, timely and legally accountable.
