In the custodial death case of Somnath Suryawanshi, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Director General of Police (DGP) to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within one week. The court orally passed the order on August 14, 2025.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh observed that the Inquiry Committee earlier appointed by the Maharashtra Government will be dissolved, and all documents related to the 35-year-old Dalit law student Suryawanshi’s custodial death will now be handed over to the new SIT.
“If the petitioner, Vijayabai Venkata Suryawanshi, has any objections to the members of the SIT, she may register them before the court,” the Bench observed.
Advocate Hitendra Gandhi representing Ms. Suryawanshi, told The Hindu, “The High Court’s direction to constitute a SIT in the custodial death case of Somnath Suryawanshi is a significant step forward, we hope the SIT will conduct a fair and thorough investigation to deliver justice that has long been denied. This order restores faith that the truth cannot be buried, and accountability will have to follow.”
On July 4, 2025, the court directed the Parbhani police to register a First Information Report (FIR) within a week, noting prima facie evidence of custodial torture and violation of fundamental rights.
The Bench passed the interim order in response to a petition filed by Mr. Suryawanshi’s 61-year-old mother, Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi. The petitioner alleged that her son was subjected to brutal torture during his illegal detention following a protest in Parbhani on December 11, 2024, and that authorities subsequently attempted to cover up his death as a cardiac incident.
Mr. Suryawanshi, a final-year law student and a member of a Scheduled Caste family from Latur, was reportedly arrested while filming a protest against the desecration of a replica of the Constitution near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The petition alleged that despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration, he and several others were picked up during an indiscriminate police crackdown, subjected to custodial assault, and denied timely medical attention.
On July 30, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Maharashtra government challenging a Bombay High Court order directing the police to register a FIR.
Mr. Suryawanshi, a final-year law student and a member of a Scheduled Caste family from Latur, was reportedly arrested while filming a protest against the desecration of a replica of the Constitution near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The petition alleged that despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration, he and several others were picked up during an indiscriminate police crackdown, subjected to custodial assault, and denied timely medical attention.
The petition stated, “In the videos, it could be seen that Somnath was carrying the book of the Constitution of India and recording the incident in the protest. His arrest was illegal and then he was subjected to inhuman atrocities. He as well as other persons were produced before the Magistrate on 12.12.2024. The others were also subjected to brutality and their injuries were visible, swollen, however, they were afraid to speak to the Magistrate due to the threats those were given.”
It further said that the Court had granted police custody of two days. “Further brutal assault was given to Somnath. His situation worsened when he was again produced before the Magistrate on 14.12.2024. Thereafter, his custody was transferred to Magisterial custody. Around 6.49 a.m. suddenly Somnath died on 15.12.2024, while in judicial custody,” the petition read.
It was further submitted that police claimed Mr. Suryawanshi had complained of chest pain prior to his death.
The petitioner also alleged that on reaching Parbhani, she was taken by Police Officer Ashok Ghorband to the Inspector General of Police, where she was informed that Somnath’s brothers could be offered police jobs and was advised to perform the last rites in Latur instead of Parbhani. She further claimed she was offered ₹50 lakh to refrain from filing a complaint. She declined, demanding that her son’s death be acknowledged as custodial murder and not classified as death by natural causes.
The court noted that the post-mortem, conducted by a seven-member medical team, had recorded 24 visible injuries and concluded that the cause of death was “shock following multiple injuries”. A judicial inquiry under Section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) also reportedly found gross human rights violations and directly linked the death to custodial assault.
“This Court cannot remain a mute spectator when constitutional rights of a person in custody are prima facie violated,” the Bench observed, criticising the State for failing to register a cognisable offence despite substantial evidence from the post-mortem, inquest report, and the magistrate’s findings.
The Bench further questioned the delay by the CID in acting on the findings and expressed concern over the credibility of the internal inquiry, which bypassed the autopsy doctors and instead sought a second opinion from J.J. Hospital, Mumbai.
The court directed that an FIR be registered based on the petitioner’s complaint dated December 18, 2024, and that the investigation be handed over to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The prior order restraining CID officer D.B. Talpe from submitting a final report has been vacated following this direction.
Published – August 16, 2025 02:35 pm IST
