Today(24th Sept), The Delhi High Court has asked the CBI to respond to a plea by Dalvin Suresh, seeking a new Investigating Officer and a transparent probe into his son Nevin Dalvin’s death during flooding at RAU’s IAS Study Circle. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma scheduled the next hearing for November 27, 2024, while allowing the ongoing investigation to continue.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The tragic drowning incident at RAU’s IAS Study Circle in Old Rajinder Nagar, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a formal response. The application was filed by Dalvin Suresh, father of Nevin Dalvin, a UPSC aspirant who died during the catastrophic flooding in the basement of the coaching institute. The petition seeks the appointment of a new Investigating Officer (IO) and a more transparent investigation into the tragedy.
Today(24th Sept), Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma issued a notice to the CBI, urging the investigative body to respond to the application. The next court hearing has been scheduled for November 27, 2024, and while the court has asked the CBI for its stance, it has refused to halt the ongoing investigation.
“The prayer is beyond the law and the court can’t stay the investigation,”
-remarked the Delhi High Court, dismissing any immediate intervention in the investigation process.
The petition, filed through advocate Abhijit Anand, challenges a previous trial court order that had denied similar reliefs sought by Suresh. The trial court had earlier dismissed his application for a change of Investigating Officer, along with other requests aimed at ensuring a fair and thorough probe.
The case traces back to the September 20, 2024 order from the Rouse Avenue Court, where Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Nishant Garg dismissed an application filed by Suresh. Suresh had raised serious concerns about the handling of the investigation into his son’s death and had sought the appointment of an investigating officer of at least the rank of Inspector General. He also requested monitoring of the case to ensure accountability from officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Fire Services, and Delhi Police.
During the September 20 hearing, ACJM Nishant Garg noted:
“Given that this court does not have the authority under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to direct the CBI to register an FIR and investigate an offence, it also cannot oversee the investigation, mandate a change of Investigating Officer (IO), or order the arrest of individuals potentially involved in the offence, as such powers are ancillary to those conferred under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.”
The court also referenced an earlier order from the Delhi High Court dated August 2, 2024, which had already assigned the investigation to the CBI. In that directive, the Chief Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) was specifically appointed to oversee the investigation’s progress to ensure its timely conclusion. The Senior Public Prosecutor had reiterated that the investigation is under constant surveillance by the CVC.
“Considering the above discussion, the requested reliefs cannot be granted. Therefore, the application is dismissed.”
– the court concluded.
In his application, advocate Abhijit Anand argued that the library situated in the basement of RAU’s IAS Study Circle had been operating illegally, violating the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 and other regulatory frameworks. The plea alleged that the coaching institute lacked a proper Fire Safety Certificate and that no adequate measures were taken to prevent surface drainage water from entering the basement.
Further, despite the close proximity of a Delhi Police Beat Booth, no action was taken to curb these violations, leading to the tragic incident. Anand pointed out the alleged complicity of MCD and Delhi Fire Service officials in allowing the institute to continue its illegal operations.
Despite a Fire No Objection Certificate (NOC) being issued on August 9, 2024, following a physical inspection, the illegal library operating in the basement went unnoticed by both the Delhi Fire Services (DFS) and MCD officials. A student named Kishore Singh Kushwaha had lodged a formal complaint on June 26, 2024, but no preventive measures were taken. The negligence eventually culminated in the catastrophic flooding of the basement, leading to the deaths of three students, including Suresh’s son Nevin.
On August 2, 2024, the Delhi High Court had transferred the investigation from the Delhi Police to the CBI, citing the complexity of the case. The court observed that the flooding in the basement was caused in part by the bursting of a sewer pipeline, upon which an illegal market and even a police booth had been constructed. Despite this, the investigating officer (IO) had not sufficiently examined the role of MCD or DFS officials involved in the illegalities.
The application contends that charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act have not been invoked against any of the accused, and the IO has failed to question or arrest any MCD or DFS officials.
Advocate Abhijit Anand further argued that the investigation remains biased, as no MCD or DFS official has been named or interrogated thus far.
“The investigation is being conducted in a biased manner, as no officials from the MCD or DFS have been included in the investigation so far.”
-Anand remarked.
He also pointed out that the investigation remains incomplete, despite being handed over to the CBI. While statements from employees of the coaching institute and the applicant have been recorded, no public functionaries have been questioned. The failure to invoke charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act against government officers or private persons involved in the illegalities is also a major grievance.
Further, Anand highlighted the alleged conduct of the current IO, suggesting that there is an attempt to “shield senior officers who might be involved in the case.” He expressed concerns that the IO may be rushing to file a charge-sheet without fully completing the investigation.
In opposition to the application, the senior public prosecutor representing the CBI argued that the petition was not maintainable. He emphasized that under Section 156(3) CrPC, the court does not possess the authority to instruct the CBI to file an FIR or conduct an investigation.
On the merits of the case, the CBI clarified that it had not indicated that the investigation was nearing completion and maintained that it is the prerogative of the IO to conduct the investigation independently. The CBI reassured the court that the investigation is already being closely monitored by the CVC.
In the latest legal maneuver, advocate Abhijit Anand raised fresh concerns regarding the investigation’s progress. Speaking about the CBI’s handling of the case, Anand stated-
“To date, the CBI Investigating Officer has not questioned any officials from the MCD, Delhi Fire Services, or other relevant authorities.”
In response to the dismissal of his earlier petition, Anand declared-
“Today, I have once again submitted the order to the Delhi High Court, and the court has issued a notice to the CBI to provide a response.”
