Dabholkar, an anti-superstition activist was shot dead in Pune in 2013. In August last year, the Supreme Court told CBI to examine the conspiracy behind the four murders and if there was a common thread following the request from Dabholkar’s children.
The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, dismissed a plea challenging the discontinuation of the court-monitored investigation into the 2013 murder of anti-superstition activist Narendra Dabholkar. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, however, allowed the petitioner, Mukta Dabholkar, daughter of Narendra Dabholkar, to submit any relevant material to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which the CBI must consider and proceed with in accordance with the law.
Also read-Supreme Court Halts Bombay High Court’s Order For By-Election In Pune (lawchakra.in)
The Supreme Court’s order stated,
“Prima facie, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, we leave it open for the petitioner to provide any such material which may come handy to the petitioner and may be related to the criminal cases in question. Same be provided to CBI, which shall take into consideration and proceed in accordance with law.”
The Bench remarked during the hearing that courts are not meant for perpetual monitoring of cases, stating,
“Courts are not meant for monitoring and everything…”
This observation came in response to Senior Advocate Anand Grover’s argument on behalf of the petitioner, emphasizing the need to investigate the larger conspiracy behind the murder, as focusing solely on the shooters would not uncover the masterminds.
The Bombay High Court had transferred the murder probe from Pune police to the CBI in 2014, following petitions by activist Ketan Tirodkar and later by Mukta Dabholkar. Since then, the High Court had been monitoring the progress of the case. However, in April last year, the High Court refused to continue this monitoring, stating that such oversight could not be perpetual and that the rights of the accused must be considered once a charge sheet is filed.
Mukta Dabholkar approached the Supreme Court after the High Court’s decision, relying on the CBI’s statement that the investigation was ongoing. The CBI had informed the High Court that the investigation was complete and a completion report had been filed. The investigating agency also mentioned that the trial, which commenced in September 2021, could conclude within two months if expedited.
This Supreme Court ruling highlights the delicate balance between judicial oversight and the autonomy of investigative agencies. It underscores the principle that while some degree of court monitoring is permissible, it cannot extend indefinitely, especially when a trial is underway and the investigation is reportedly complete. The case, which has been in the public eye for nearly a decade, continues to evoke interest for its implications on the justice system and the handling of high-profile criminal investigations in India.
