The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the circumstances surrounding the custodial death of 34-year-old Shravan Suryavanshi in Chhattisgarh in 2024, and ordered the state government to pay ₹25 lakh as compensation to his widow and children.
Top court finds cover-up by state authorities
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the facts of the case warranted immediate registration of a first information report (FIR) and a thorough investigation into the events that led to Suryavanshi's death. The court said the explanation offered by state authorities — that no action was taken because the judicial inquiry report had not been served on police officials — was a "cover-up story and an attempt to pull the wool over the court's eyes."
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the ends of justice require that the investigation into the circumstances leading to the custodial death of Shravan be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation..."
The bench further directed that the CBI director "shall forthwith ensure registration of a regular criminal case in relation to the custodial death of Shravan" and that all officials found responsible be proceeded against and prosecuted in accordance with law.
Background: High Court findings and earlier compensation
The top court's order arose from a plea by Suryavanshi's wife and children challenging an October 2024 verdict of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The high court had concluded that Suryavanshi was subjected to custodial violence and that his death resulted from that violence. However, the high court awarded only ₹1 lakh in compensation to the petitioners and did not direct action against the officers implicated, according to the petitioners' plea.
The Supreme Court has now enhanced the compensation to ₹25 lakh and asked for fresh criminal proceedings to be registered and investigated centrally.
Immediate legal consequences
By transferring the investigation to the CBI and ordering a regular criminal case, the apex court has signalled its view that state-level procedures and inaction were inadequate. The bench's direction removes investigative control from state authorities and places it with the central agency, which will determine the course of evidence collection, questioning and prosecution recommendations.
The court's rebuke of the state over delays and the alleged attempt to avoid initiating criminal proceedings underscores judicial concerns about accountability in custodial death cases.
- Investigation agency: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the case.
- Compensation ordered: ₹25 lakh to be paid to the victim's wife and children.
- Previous ruling: Chhattisgarh High Court found custodial violence had occurred and had awarded ₹1 lakh earlier.
Timeline
| Date/Period | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024 | Custodial death of 34-year-old Shravan Suryavanshi in Chhattisgarh (as recorded in court records) |
| October 2024 | Chhattisgarh High Court held that Suryavanshi suffered custodial violence and awarded ₹1 lakh to petitioners |
| August 12, 2026 | Supreme Court directs CBI probe and directs state to pay ₹25 lakh to wife and children |
What the order means for the family and officials
For Suryavanshi's widow and children, the Supreme Court's decision provides both higher monetary compensation and the possibility of criminal accountability for those allegedly responsible. For the Chhattisgarh administration and the police personnel implicated, the order means the prospect of an independent central investigation and, depending on findings, prosecution under criminal law.
The bench emphasised that the ends of justice required central inquiry and that, following completion of the investigation, officials found culpable must face legal consequences. The court's direction to the CBI director to ensure registration of a regular criminal case removes any discretion by the state to defer or limit inquiry on procedural grounds.
The case adds to a series of judicial interventions in custodial death matters where higher courts have intervened to ensure impartial investigation and compensation when state mechanisms were found wanting.
No further details about the identities of the accused officers or the precise circumstances of the custodial violence were specified in the Supreme Court order reported in the petition records. The bench's directive, however, sets in motion a fresh, independent probe and the possibility of criminal trials if evidence supports charges.
