Kerala High Court Denies CBI Probe in ADM Naveen Babu’s Death, Directs SIT Investigation

The Kerala High Court Today (Jan 6) declined a CBI probe into the death of ADM Naveen Babu, allegedly driven to suicide by CPI (M) leader PP Divya’s public corruption accusations. While rejecting the plea by Babu’s widow, the court directed the SIT to expedite its investigation under DIG supervision, explore possible homicidal hanging, and inform the widow of progress. Concerns were raised about political shielding, witness intimidation, and inadequate evidence preservation, but the state defended the SIT’s impartiality.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Kochi: The Kerala High Court today declined to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the death of Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Naveen Babu. His widow had petitioned the court, alleging that the CPI (M)-led state government was shielding the main accused, PP Divya, from facing legal consequences. Divya is a CPI (M) leader and former Kannur District Panchayat President.

Divya is the primary accused in the case, which revolves around allegations that she drove ADM Babu to take his life by suicide. This was after she publicly accused him of corruption during a speech.

The court, presided over by Justice Kauser Edapagath, denied the request for a CBI probe. However, it directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) handling the case to conduct the investigation diligently and without delay. The investigation will be overseen by the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police in Kannur, with regular progress reports to be submitted to the DIG. Additionally, the SIT was instructed to keep ADM Babu’s widow informed about the investigation’s progress.

The court also ordered the SIT to investigate whether ADM Babu’s death could have been a case of homicidal hanging. ADM Babu was found dead in his official residence on October 15, 2024, after attending a farewell ceremony held for his transfer to another district. At this event, Divya publicly accused him of corruption. Later, she was charged with abetment of suicide and, after a brief period of judicial custody, was granted bail on November 8 by a Sessions Court.

Manjusha, Babu’s widow, raised serious concerns about the investigation in her petition. She pointed out that there seemed to be attempts to protect Divya from facing justice. The petition highlighted that the SIT’s investigation was neither impartial nor comprehensive.

Kerala High Court Denies CBI Probe in ADM Naveen Babu’s Death, Directs SIT Investigation

It was noted that evidence crucial to the case, such as CCTV footage from the District Collectorate, phone call logs, location data, and recordings involving the District Collector and another government official, Prashanth, were not properly preserved. Furthermore, witnesses were reportedly reluctant to testify against Divya due to her political influence. Manjusha also pointed out that the inquest into ADM Babu’s death was conducted hastily, even before his family could reach the scene.

Manjusha’s counsel argued that Divya’s political power would hinder a fair investigation by the current SIT. They highlighted that after Divya was released on bail, the wife of the CPI (M) State Secretary greeted her outside the jail in front of the media, and the State Secretary himself publicly stated that Divya would be protected. Despite resigning from her Panchayat post, Divya was later appointed as a permanent member of the District Panchayat Finance Standing Committee on December 7, further raising concerns about political shielding.

The state government argued that the SIT’s impartiality should not be doubted without clear evidence. However, Manjusha’s legal team, comprising advocates John S Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph R John, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Geethu TA, Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, and Krishnapriya Sreekumar, maintained that the circumstances called for a CBI probe to ensure justice.

The Kerala High Court’s decision leaves the case in the hands of the SIT, under the scrutiny of higher police authorities, with a mandate for transparency and accountability in the investigation.

CASE TITLE:
Manjusha v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on ADM Naveen Babu

author

Vaibhav Ojha

ADVOCATE | LLM | BBA.LLB | SENIOR LEGAL EDITOR @ LAW CHAKRA

Similar Posts