In a strongly worded order, the Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern over allegations of police misconduct and fabrication of evidence by Madhya Pradesh Police officials. The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing *ANWAR HUSSAIN v. State of Madhya Pradesh, took note of a false affidavit filed by police officers and disturbing claims made in an intervention application about the use of stock witnesses, assault, and false implication in criminal cases.
The Court described the situation as “alarming”, emphasising that such conduct shakes public confidence in the criminal justice system and compels ordinary citizens to approach the Supreme Court merely to protect their basic rights.
Background: False Affidavit Triggers Scrutiny
The matter originated from a case where the Madhya Pradesh Police claimed that the petitioner, Anwar Hussain, had eight criminal antecedents, including a serious rape case. But when questioned by the Bench on 4 November 2025, it was revealed that in four of the eight cases, the petitioner was not an accused at all. Even more concerning, one of these was a rape FIR in which the petitioner had no connection.
The State sought to defend the mistake by calling it a “computer-generated mix-up” due to the petitioner and his father sharing the same name.
The Court, however, found this explanation wholly inadequate. Filing a false affidavit before the highest constitutional court, whether deliberate or negligent, constitutes a grave breach of duty and undermines the integrity of the justice system.
This prompted the Supreme Court to summon:
- Dishesh Aggarwal, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Officer in Charge)
- Indramani Patel, Station House Officer
Both officers were directed to be personally present and explain how such a false affidavit came to be filed.
New Allegations Surface: Fabrication of Evidence & Stock Witnesses
During the 25 November hearing, the Bench was informed by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde that a 24-year-old lawyer, Asad Ali Warsi, had filed an intervention application raising even more disturbing allegations against the same police officials.
Key allegations by the intervenor:
- He was falsely implicated in a drunk-driving case after he allegedly refused to pay a bribe.
- Police officials used “stock witnesses” — the same individuals repeated across hundreds of FIRs, raising serious doubts about the integrity of investigations.
- The intervenor was assaulted, and the incident was recorded on his mobile phone.
- SHO Indramani Patel and another officer were shown as witnesses in the case despite not being present at the scene.
These allegations, in the Court’s view, highlight the possibility of a pattern of abuse of authority, far beyond a mere inadvertent error.
Supreme Court’s Sharp Observations
Justice Amanullah, visibly concerned, remarked in open court:
“Citizens now have to approach the Supreme Court to secure their basic rights. The situation is alarming.”
The Court further expressed displeasure over the apparent attempt by senior officials to shield their subordinates. Addressing ADCP Aggarwal, Justice Amanullah observed:
“Mr ADCP, it appears that your SHO is more powerful than you.”
This remark reflects the Court’s perception that the supervisory officer’s explanation lacked transparency and accountability.
Impleading of Senior Officers: A Strong Message on Accountability
After reviewing the affidavits filed by ADCP Aggarwal and SHO Patel, the Supreme Court found it necessary to make both of them party respondents (Respondents No. 3 and 4) to the proceedings. The Court recorded:
“As serious issues… relating to the conduct of the police… which has a direct bearing on public confidence have been raised… the Court would require the present two officers… to be impleaded as party respondents.”
This step is significant: by impleading the officers personally, the Court ensures they are held individually answerable for their conduct.
Further, based on ADCP Aggarwal’s statement that he would forward the allegations to superior officers, the Court also impleaded the Commissioner of Police, Indore, making him responsible for addressing systemic issues.
Court Seeks Personal Affidavits on Larger Questions of Police Conduct
The Supreme Court has directed all newly added respondents to file personal affidavits addressing:
- The specific allegations made in the intervention application.
- The broader issue of misconduct and fabrication of evidence.
- The systemic questions related to the use of stock witnesses and false implication.
- The adequacy of supervisory mechanisms within the Madhya Pradesh Police.
This requirement marks a shift from case-specific scrutiny to a holistic examination of policing practices, particularly in Indore.
Why This Case Matters: Impact on Criminal Justice and Public Trust
The Supreme Court’s observations reinforce that fabrication of evidence is not just illegal—it is corrosive to public trust. It can lead to:
- Wrongful prosecutions
- Distortion of investigative procedures
- Erosion of faith in law enforcement
- Violation of constitutional rights
Use of “stock witnesses” across multiple FIRs is especially troubling. It points to a mechanised, fraudulent approach to criminal investigation, potentially affecting hundreds of cases.
Moreover, false affidavits filed before courts—especially the Supreme Court—represent serious misconduct and could amount to:
- Perjury
- Contempt of court
- Departmental action
- Criminal prosecution
This case may set a precedent on how courts respond to falsification and misuse of police powers.
Next Hearing on December 9: All Eyes on Court’s Next Steps
With the Supreme Court’s decision to formally involve senior police officers, the matter has now escalated into a broader inquiry into institutional policing practices in Madhya Pradesh.
The Court will hear the matter again on December 9, when the personal affidavits of all impleaded officers will be scrutinised.
Legal experts believe the Court may:
- Order an independent inquiry
- Direct disciplinary action
- Issue guidelines to curb misuse of police powers
- Pass strict directions on the use and verification of criminal antecedent data
This case, therefore, stands at the intersection of constitutional rights, police accountability, and judicial oversight.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s strong words—especially the term *“alarming”—signal deep judicial concern about alleged fabrication of evidence and misuse of authority by police officials in Madhya Pradesh. By impleading the ADCP, SHO, and Commissioner of Police, the Court has sent a clear message that *no officer is above accountability, and that false affidavits and manipulated investigations cannot be brushed aside as clerical or technical errors.
As the matter progresses, it may shape future jurisprudence on transparency in policing, the sanctity of affidavits, and the right of citizens to be protected from arbitrary state action.
Also Read
