A Delhi court recently ordered a comprehensive inquiry into allegations of custodial torture made by an undertrial, Prabhat Kumar, while in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court emphasized that such accusations against officers of the nation's premier investigating agency must not go unanswered. The order was delivered by Special Judge Sushant Changotra of Rouse Avenue Courts following Kumar's claims that he was subjected to severe physical abuse during his detention.
Kumar, who was arrested on June 16 by the CBI for allegedly acting as a middleman in a ₹3-crore bribery case, alleged that he was beaten while in custody, resulting in serious injuries to his left ear and left thigh. His legal team submitted that medical reports, including one dated June 19, indicated injuries consistent with the allegations. Kumar identified four CBI officials as perpetrators of the alleged assault, claiming that the damage to his ear has significantly impaired his hearing. He further sought disciplinary action against the implicated officers.
The CBI, in response, maintained that Kumar had been regularly medically examined during his custody, and that the allegations were an afterthought. However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that the medical records were contemporaneous and supported Kumar's claims. It highlighted that the CBI failed to provide any explanation for the injuries, which Kumar claimed occurred solely during his time in their custody. The court stressed that the lack of explanation was significant, especially given Kumar's assertion that he was taken to the Bara Hindu Rao Police Station and subjected to physical assault.
The court underscored that custodial violence represents a grave violation of the rule of law and that no investigative body, regardless of the gravity of the case, can resort to physical force or coercion. It reiterated that the legitimacy of an investigation rests on fairness and legality, not on extracting information through intimidation. The judge concluded that the CBI's failure to address the unexplained injuries, combined with Kumar's account of his movements and the medical evidence, strongly supports the allegations of custodial violence.
In addition to Kumar's case, the CBI has already arrested several individuals linked to the bribery case. These include Deepak Gahlawat, a Haryana IPS officer and BCAS regional director, who is accused of accepting illegal gratification of ₹3 crores for influencing a public servant in a counterfeit medicine racket case involving ₹5,000 crores. Other arrests include N. Raja, the alleged main accused in the racket, and Delhi Police Inspector Pradeep Singh.
Separately, in Kerala, the state government has filed an affidavit with the Kerala High Court indicating that it has granted sanction for the CBI to prosecute two former officials, R. Chandrasekharan and K.A. Ratheesh, in connection with alleged irregularities worth ₹600 crores in the import of raw cashew. The state has reserved its right to appeal to the Supreme Court. This decision followed a contempt of court petition filed by Kadakampally Manoj, who sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the Principal Secretary, Industries, A.P.M. Mohammad Hanish, for refusing to grant sanction and failing to comply with a High Court order.
The state initially issued a sanction order on July 2, asserting that the High Court had acted as a trial court in the contempt proceedings and that the state was coerced into granting the sanction. However, a revised order issued on July 6 merely reserved the state's right to appeal. An application was also filed to initiate contempt proceedings against K. Biju, the new government secretary overseeing the Cashew Development department, alleging that his sanction order favored the accused.
These developments highlight ongoing tensions between investigative agencies and governmental authorities, emphasizing the complexities surrounding legal procedures and accountability mechanisms in high-profile cases. As both cases unfold, they continue to draw attention to broader issues of judicial oversight, procedural integrity, and the protection of individual rights within the framework of criminal investigations.
3 reports
The HinduIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 6511 days agoLeader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan criticized the UDF government's stance on the implementation of Section 14 of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, arguing that it would undermine minority interests and negatively impact ongoing Supreme Court petitions. Vijayan noted that the UDF government is repeating its position from the High Court, which mandates the inclusion of two non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board, a provision opposed by several petitions. He highlighted that the previous LDF government did not include non-Muslim members in the board and that the UDF is now allegedly spreading false rumors about current Waqf Board members to justify their actions. Vijayan accused the UDF of aligning with the Sangh Parivar agenda and attempting to manipulate the Waqf Board post-power transition.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the UDF government's position as undermining minority rights and aligns with the opposition leader's critique of the ruling party. It uses terms like 'Sangh Parivar agenda' and accuses the UDF of 'political sabotage,' suggesting a left-leaning perspective. The emphasis on minority
Why factuality (85): The article reports Pinarayi Vijayan's statements regarding the UDF government's stance on the Waqf Act and its potential impact on minority interests. It cites specific sections of the Act and references past government positions, aligning with cross-source consensus that the UDF government is cont
Why objectivity (65): The article presents Vijayan's criticism of the UDF government but uses emotionally charged language like 'sacrifice minority interests' and frames the issue as a betrayal of secular values. This suggests a partisan tone favoring the opposition's perspective.
The HinduIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 6516 days ago Kerala Waqf Board reconstitution: Pinarayi Vijayan accuses UDF govt of ‘surrendering to Sangh Parivar diktats’Kerala's Leader of the Opposition, Pinarayi Vijayan, accused the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government of aligning with the Sangh Parivar's agenda by reconstituting the Kerala Waqf Board according to the Union government's 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act. He criticized the UDF for contradicting earlier support for a resolution opposing the amendment, which aimed to include non-Muslim members in the predominantly Muslim Waqf Board. Vijayan argued that the amendment violates secular principles and that the UDF's decision reflects submission to the Sangh Parivar's influence. He highlighted that while the previous Left Democratic Front (LDF) government had resisted the amendment, the current UDF government has proceeded despite ongoing legal challenges.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the UDF government's actions as capitulation to the Sangh Parivar, using loaded terms like 'surrendering' and 'kowtow.' It emphasizes the ideological conflict between secular governance and the Sangh Parivar's agenda, portraying the UDF as betraying Kerala's secular values. The ph
Why factuality (85): The article details Vijayan's accusation that the UDF government has 'surrendered to the Sangh Parivar diktats', referencing the 2025 amendment and past government stances. It provides context about the legal challenges and the role of different governments, consistent with other reports. Factuality
Why objectivity (65): The article uses terms like 'Sangh Parivar diktats' and 'betrayed Kerala’s secular society' which carry strong ideological connotations, indicating a lack of neutrality in the presentation of facts.
The PrintIndependentProgressiveFactual 70Objective 4516 days agoThe article reports that Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan accused the state government of 'completely surrendering' to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) regarding the management of the Waqf properties. The Waqf system refers to Islamic endowments, which are often managed by religious authorities. Vijayan criticized the government's handling of these assets, suggesting that they were handed over to the BJP-controlled administration without proper oversight. The statement highlights tensions between different political parties over the control and regulation of religious institutions.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the criticism against the Kerala government as a failure to uphold secular governance, implying that the BJP's influence has compromised the state's autonomy. The language used suggests a left-leaning perspective by emphasizing the loss of control over religious matters and the 's
Why factuality (70): The article states that the Chief Minister claimed the government 'completely surrendered' to the BJP on the Waqf issue. While this is presented as his statement, it is not corroborated by other sources, which focus more on the dispute over the composition of the Waqf board rather than an outright s
Why objectivity (45): The article presents the CM's claim without counterpoints or additional context, giving it a one-sided impression. The title itself implies a strong accusation against the government, which leans toward supporting the CM's narrative without presenting alternative viewpoints.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
India
