The Supreme Court on Monday directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a fresh investigation into the 2023 death of Salman Khan, the driver of former Congress MLA Vikram Singh in Madhya Pradesh, after expressing the view that the probe should be handled by senior officers "in the interest of justice and fair play."

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order while hearing a petition filed by the victim's widow, Reziya, seeking transfer of the investigation. The petition alleged that Salman Khan was deliberately run over by a car at the behest of rival BJP candidate and that the investigation had been compromised due to political influence.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the police had ignored crucial eyewitnesses despite their willingness to testify.

"There were 3-4 witnesses. Five people gave sworn affidavits to the police saying they were eyewitnesses, yet their statements were not recorded," Bhushan submitted.

He further pointed out that the police, in its status report, had relied on statements of three persons purportedly from the complainant's family who claimed that the Congress candidate's vehicle was not involved. Bhushan disputed this, contending that those persons were "not related in any way" to the complainant's family.

Responding to the submissions, CJI Surya Kant observed that disclosure of witnesses' identities in open court could have adverse consequences.

"What we can do - sometimes disclosing names on record may attract... if you can give those 4-5 names to the ASG, we can direct the SIT that their statements will also be recorded," the CJI said.

Bhushan replied that no SIT had yet been constituted.

During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi told Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, "Your duty is to instill confidence."

The State, however, denied allegations of a tainted investigation. The ASG maintained that the probe had been conducted "fairly, independently" and was nearing completion.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to constitute an SIT within two days.

The Court ordered that the SIT should comprise three IPS officers of the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and two officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Additional Superintendent of Police. None of the officers should belong to the jurisdiction of Chhatarpur district, where the case is being investigated.

Significantly, the Court directed that the officer heading the SIT should belong to a cadre other than Madhya Pradesh.

The Bench further ordered that the SIT should take over the entire investigation record from the existing investigating agency and conduct the probe independently, "uninfluenced by the investigation already conducted."

The Court specifically directed the SIT to record and consider the statements of the persons claimed to be eyewitnesses before filing its final report.

The investigation has been directed to be completed within two months.

Clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court observed that any further consequences would depend on the outcome of the SIT investigation.

Alleging a political angle in the case, the petitioner states that her husband was the driver of Indian National Congress candidate-Kunwar Vikram Singh who contested a Vidhan Sabha election against accused-Arvind Pateriya of BJP. On the fateful day, information was allegedly received that Pateriya and his supporters were distributing money to villagers. The deceased and others were on their way to the place to stop the activity, but en route, they were obstructed by cattle. When the deceased stepped down to clear the road, the accused came on the spot and ran a car over him. One Shivam tried to help the deceased, but he was also injured. After the incident, Pateriya won the election and, according to the petitioner, nothing has been happening in the case, despite representation having been given to various authorities.

Case Title: RAJIYA ALI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 364/2025