'Totally Incompetent': Supreme Court Slams Chhattisgarh DGP In Custodial Death Case, Warns Contempt

Taking note of laxity shown by senior police officials in a custodial death case, the Supreme Court recently came down heavily on Chhattisgarh police and slammed the Director General of Police as "totally incompetent".

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a writ petition filed by a man's wife and two daughters, alleging that their husband/father died in custody due to custodial torture. Though the death of the man took place in January 2024, an FIR was apparently registered by the police to probe his death on July 30, 2026.

The family had initially approached the High Court seeking a fair investigation into the custodial death as well as a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs. The High Court however disposed of the matter while awarding Rs.1 lakh as compensation, without passing any direction for registration of FIR or probe into the allegations.

In January this year, the Supreme Court issued notice to the state. A counter-affidavit came to be filed, but it did not disclose what steps had been taken to register an FIR and investigate the deceased's custodial death.

In an earlier order, the Court noted that the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court was "completely inadequate" and "not commensurate" with the gravity of the loss suffered by the deceased's family. It gave the State time to obtain instructions and called on the State Home Secretary and the DGP to remain present through VC.

Recently, the State Home Secretary and the DGP joined the proceedings. The DGP submitted that an inquiry had been ordered and stringent steps would be taken against the errant officials. The Court was displeased with the manner in which the matter was being handled, particularly prolonged non-registration of an FIR against the errant police officials. "We will see who should be assigned this task of finding the responsibility. Whether the state police is competent enough to do it or it needs to be sent to some other agency. From what we have seen, we don't feel that the administration of Chhattisgarh is competent enough to deal with with matter", Justice Mehta remarked.

When the DGP sought to justify the delay by claiming that the judicial enquiry report (on the cause of death) was not sent to the police department, Justice Mehta noted that the report was appended with the state's affidavit before the High Court. "We will draw contempt proceedings! Misleading the court on every aspect" the judge exclaimed.

The judicial enquiry had certified that the deceased died due to a head injury caused by a blunt weapon. The DGP submitted that on a reading of the report on record, no cognizable offense was made out for registration of FIR.

"What do you mean by death by head injury caused by a blunt weapon? Tell us please. You understand? In plain English?" Justice Mehta posed to the DGP. "We are sorry to say that we will have to record that the DGP of Chhattisgarh is totally incompetent!" the judge commented.

To briefly put facts of the case, the deceased, 34-year old, was arrested over alleged possession of liquor for sale in front of his grocery shop (worth Rs.1200). He was taken into custody on 18 January 2024 and referred to a hospital within 3 days (21 January 2024). At the hospital, he died at around 6 AM.

Before the High Court, the State informed that the deceased was medically examined after his arrest and on that date, no injury (except some generalized swelling since 15 days) was found. On January 22, the Jail Superintendent wrote a letter to the Sessions Judge for conducting a judicial enquiry in the deceased's death.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate initiated an enquiry in terms of Section 176 CrPC. Ultimately, the concerned JMFC opined in a report of July 2024 that the death was on account of complications resulting from the head injury.

In this backdrop, the High Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioners. It noted that the State, as employer of the employees whose "negligence" resulted in the loss of the deceased's life, was liable to pay the compensation. Notably, the compensation of Rs.1 lakh was awarded keeping in view the idea that such compensation should have a deterrent effect on the police officials/jail officers so they don't indulge in such acts which can result in loss of life.

The matter has been listed for orders.

Case : LAHRA BAI TAMRE vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Diary No. - 48963/2025