Parbhani custodial death: Mother moves HC over state’s failure to frame binding rules

In an application filed on December 9, Vijayabai Suryawanshi said the state government has not taken effective steps to address systemic and policy failures in handling custodial deaths

MUMBAI: The mother of Somnath Suryawanshi, a Dalit law student whose death in judicial custody in Parbhani in December 2024 triggered widespread outrage, has moved the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court, alleging that the Maharashtra government has failed to comply with its earlier order regarding custodial death cases.

Parbhani, India. 16, 2024: A 35-year-old man named Somnath Suryawanshi died in Parbhani district jail on December 15, 2024. Suryawanshi was detained alongside 50 other Dalit youths for their alleged involvement in the violence that broke out in the city following the desecration of a replica of the Constitution on December 10, 2024. Parbhani, India. Dec 16, 2024. (Photo by HT Photo) (Hindustan Times)

In an application filed on December 9, Vijayabai Suryawanshi said the state government has not taken effective steps to address systemic and policy failures in handling custodial deaths, despite a high court order dated September 12 directing immediate action regarding policy failures in such cases.

Following the high court’s order, the Maharashtra home department had issued fresh guidelines for investigating custodial deaths, which prohibited investigating officers from closing custodial death cases without considering the conclusions drawn by executive magistrates.

The guidelines, issued on September 30, highlighted that officers from the state’s Crime Investigation Department, who usually probe custodial deaths, shall not close cases without taking into consideration the conclusions drawn by executive magistrates in their reports.

However, Vijayabai Suryawanshi’s application said that the state government has not framed any binding statutory rules or comprehensive policy, but has only issued departmental circulars directing investigating officers (IOs) to obtain the magisterial inquiry report before filing a closure report.

The application, filed through advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, stated that the government’s circular does not prescribe what must mandatorily follow when the magistrate’s inquiry records a finding of “unnatural” or “custodial death”. It does not mandate the registration of an FIR, an independent investigation, the suspension of delinquent officers, or taking time-bound steps towards prosecution, the application added.

While the high court on September 12 had itself observed that “a mere circular cannot take the place of binding guidelines”, the application contended that the circular cannot cure the statutory vacuum. Stating that it is silent on the mandatory steps to follow after the magistrate concludes that the death is unnatural or homicidal, the application contended that the authorities have oscillated between fact-finding enquiries, shifting medical opinions and selective reliance on circulars, rather than promptly registering and investigating a case of “custodial murder”.

“Unless this vacuum is addressed at the policy and legislative level, every future custodial death will remain trapped in the same grey zone where a magisterial inquiry records unnatural death,” the application said. In the absence of binding norms, the fundamental right to life and protection from torture “will remain perpetually at stake, and the jurisprudence on custodial deaths will collapse into a continuing legal vacuum, leaving families without remedies and enabling impunity,” it added.

Vijayabai Suryawanshi requested the court to direct the state government to frame and notify, within a specified timeframe, a comprehensive statutory policy outlining the mandatory procedure to be followed in all custodial death cases following the magistrate’s inquiry.

She has also urged the court to ensure that her son’s case, and all similar cases, are investigated in line with the settled principles laid down by the high court and the Supreme Court until binding guidelines are brought into force, “so that the constitutional rights of detainees are not left unprotected in a policy vacuum”.

Somnath Suryawanshi, a 35-year-old law student, was arrested in Parbhani in December 2024 following violence in the city over the desecration of a replica of the Constitution. On December 15, four days after his arrest, Suryawanshi died in judicial custody. While the police initially claimed he died due to a heart attack, a post-mortem report and judicial inquiry revealed that the probable cause of death was “shock following multiple injuries”.