The matter arose from a criminal writ petition filed by Reziya Ali, widow of Salman Khan, who alleged that her husband was deliberately run over by a vehicle at the behest of a rival BJP candidate, Arvind Pateriya, during the 2023 Vidhan Sabha election campaign in Madhya Pradesh. The petition contended that the initial police investigation had been compromised by political influence and that crucial eyewitnesses had been ignored.

According to the petition, on the day of the incident Salman Khan and others were travelling to prevent the distribution of money by Pateriya’s supporters when their path was blocked by cattle. While Khan stepped onto the road to clear the obstruction, a car allegedly struck him. Another individual, Shivam, who attempted to assist Khan, also sustained injuries. Pateriya subsequently won the election, and the petitioner asserted that no substantive progress had been made in the case despite repeated representations to various authorities.

Petitioner’s Submissions

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that three to four persons had witnessed the incident and had provided sworn affidavits to the police, yet their statements were not recorded. He further stated that five individuals had given affidavits claiming to be eyewitnesses, but the police had omitted their testimonies from the record. Bhushan argued that the police had instead relied on statements from three persons who were presented as members of the complainant’s family and who asserted that the Congress candidate’s vehicle was not involved. He disputed this, asserting that those individuals bore no familial relationship to the complainant.

Court’s Observations

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, heard the matter and made several observations. Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that disclosing the identities of witnesses in open court could expose them to adverse consequences. He suggested that if the petitioner could provide the names of the four to five alleged eyewitnesses to the Additional Solicitor General, the Court could direct the forthcoming Special Investigation Team to record their statements.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, addressing the Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju who appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh, remarked that the State’s duty was to instill confidence in the investigative process. The State, through its counsel, denied any taint in the investigation and maintained that the probe had been conducted fairly, independently and was nearing completion.

Operative Directions

After considering the rival submissions, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:

The Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, shall constitute a Special Investigation Team within two days of the order.
The SIT shall consist of three IPS officers holding 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 appointed to the SIT shall belong to the jurisdiction of Chhatarpur district, where the original investigation is underway.
The officer designated to head the SIT must belong to a cadre other than that of Madhya Pradesh.
The SIT shall take over the entire investigation record from the existing agency and conduct the probe independently, without being influenced by the earlier investigation.
The SIT is specifically tasked with recording and considering the statements of the persons claimed to be eyewitnesses before submitting its final report.
The investigation must be completed within a period of two months from the date of constitution of the SIT.

The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and that any further legal consequences would depend on the outcome of the SIT’s inquiry.

Implications

The order underscores the Court’s concern about the potential for political interference in criminal investigations and its willingness to intervene when the integrity of the probe is questioned. By mandating that the SIT be led by an officer from outside the state cadre and restricting membership to officers outside the local district, the Court seeks to insulate the investigation from local influences. The direction to record eyewitness statements that were previously omitted aims to address the petitioner’s claim of ignored evidence. The two‑month timeline reflects the Court’s intent to ensure a timely resolution while preserving the independence of the investigative process.