The Delhi High Court recently instructed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to assign a senior officer to monitor the investigation into the deaths of three civil services aspirants who died due to the drowning in the basement of RAU’s IAS coaching center situated at BP-11, Old Rajinder Nagar, Central District, New Delhi, on July 27, 2024, where allegedly an illegal library was running.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma issued this directive while disposing of a petition filed by the father of one of the deceased, who sought a change of the investigating officer (IO) due to perceived deficiencies in the probe. The petitioner alleged that critical evidence, such as the building’s site plan and CCTV footage, had not been seized, raising concerns about the investigation's fairness.

“The Court is conscious of the fact that the complainant or the petitioner in the present case may have some genuine concerns. In order to balance the rights, Director CBI is requested to appoint a senior officer to have regular monitoring of the investigation being conducted by the CBI,” the court stated.

The court acknowledged the petitioner's genuine concerns but declined his request to change the investigating officer (IO), noting that the CBI has already filed a chargesheet and that further investigations were being conducted under the supervision of the Chief Vigilance Commission (CVC).

“Sh. Rajesh Kumar learned SPP, submits that the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted is the prerogative of the investigating agency, and while the further investigation is being conducted, it is prejudicial even to the complainant and to the petitioner to place doubts over the manner in which the investigation is being conducted,” the court instructed. The CBI also submitted that criminal negligence, dereliction of duty, and corrupt practices involving public servants from the MCD, DFS, and Delhi Police were under investigation.

The court emphasised that while the petitioner has the right to a fair investigation, he should not interfere with the process at this stage, as doing so could impede the probe.

“This Court hopes and trusts that CBI will keep the faith of the petitioner. The Court is conscious of the fact that the complainant or the petitioner in the present case may have some genuine concerns,” the court stated.

However, the court ordered the CBI to appoint a senior officer to monitor the investigation and urged the agency to address the petitioner's concerns, allowing him to communicate directly with the IO.

The court also clarified that while the magistrate cannot direct the CBI to register an FIR, once the CBI has registered the case, the magistrate can monitor the investigation in accordance with legal principles established by constitutional bench judgments.

“It is correct that learned MM cannot direct the CBI to the registration of the FIR. However, once the CBI has registered the case and is conducting an investigation, the concerned Court of learned MM will have all the power to monitor the investigation in accordance with the law and established principles as laid down by the judgments of the constitutional bench,” the court stated.

Case: J. Dalvin Suresh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation WP (Crl) 2972 of 2024

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Abhijit Anand, Ms. Prachi Mittal

Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP for the CBI with Mohd. Changez Ali Khan, Ms. Mishika