The Supreme Court of India on December 12, 2025, ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the mysterious death of 27-year-old tribal man Nilesh Adivasi, whose suicide triggered multiple conflicting narratives and allegations of political interference. The decision came in the case titled Govind Singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to constitute a three-member SIT within two days, comprising officers from outside the State to ensure fairness and neutrality in light of the contradictory versions of events.
Background: A Case Marked by Sudden Reversal and Suspicious Circumstances
The controversy began on July 1, 2025, when Nilesh Adivasi filed a complaint accusing Govind Singh Rajput (not the politician with the same name) of caste-based abuse under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
However, within days, he dramatically reversed his statement:
- He submitted a signed affidavit to the Superintendent of Police claiming his initial complaint was false.
- He stated he had been intoxicated and pressured into lodging the complaint.
- He repeated these claims before a judicial magistrate, saying he had no dispute with Rajput.
But on July 25, 2025, Nilesh was found dead by hanging in his residence. What followed was a flood of conflicting allegations from multiple parties.
Conflicting Versions: Brother vs Wife
After Nilesh’s death, two entirely different narratives emerged:
1. Statement by Nilesh’s Brother
- Blamed Govind Singh Rajput and others for Nilesh’s death.
- His statement led to a fresh FIR under:
- Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide)
- Provisions of the SC/ST Act
2. Statements by Nilesh’s Wife
Nilesh’s wife submitted three written complaints, none of which mentioned Rajput. Instead, she alleged:
- A former Madhya Pradesh Home Minister and his associates tortured and harassed her husband.
- Nilesh was coerced into filing the original complaint.
- He faced continuing intimidation before his death.
She accused the local police of inaction, prompting her to seek relief from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, including:
- Registration of an FIR
- Transfer of investigation to the CBI
Only after her intervention was an FIR registered.
Why the Supreme Court Ordered an SIT Probe
The Supreme Court took note of multiple red flags:
- Two contradictory sets of allegations by immediate family members
- Claims of political pressure
- Allegations of local police bias
- Failure of authorities to act promptly on the wife’s multiple complaints
- Conflicting timelines and procedural lapses
Given the complexity and the possibility of local influence, the Court held that a fresh, neutral, and comprehensive probe was necessary.
The Bench observed that the truth had become obscured due to competing narratives and political undertones.
Supreme Court’s Directions: Composition and Mandate of the SIT
The Court ordered a high-level SIT with the following members:
- A senior police officer who joined service directly (not through promotion) and has no Madhya Pradesh ties
- A young IPS officer from outside the State
- A woman police officer of Deputy Superintendent rank
The Court mandated that:
- The SIT must begin its work immediately.
- It must examine every possible angle, even those ignored by the local police.
- The investigation should be completed preferably within one month.
This composition ensures independence, diversity, and gender balance, all crucial for a sensitive case involving a tribal victim and allegations of harassment.
Protection for the Accused and Key Witnesses
The Court issued wide-ranging protections to ensure fairness and prevent intimidation:
1. Protection for Govind Singh Rajput
- Arrest stayed temporarily.
- SIT may seek the Court’s permission for custodial interrogation only if incriminating material emerges.
2. Protection for Nilesh’s Brother
Though his statement implicated Rajput, the Court ensured:
- No coercive action would be taken against him during the investigation.
3. Witness Protection
The Court directed:
- Strict protection measures, especially for tribal witnesses.
- No pressure, intimidation, or harassment would be tolerated.
The Bench emphasised that investigation must proceed free from political influence or administrative constraints.
Why the Court Intervened: A Closer Look at the Legal Issues
This case raised important questions about:
1. Contradictory Statements and Reliability
The deceased and his wife had repeatedly indicated political coercion. Yet the police:
- Did not immediately register complaints
- Shifted focus only after the brother’s version surfaced
2. Procedural Irregularities
The Court noted procedural gaps, including:
- Delays in FIR registration
- Absence of a unified investigation
- Potential bias due to local political involvement
3. Application of SC/ST Act
The fresh case filed under the Act rested primarily on the brother’s statement, even though earlier statements contradicted it.
The Court found these contradictions significant enough to warrant an SIT probe.
Impact of the Supreme Court’s Order
1. Strengthens Judicial Oversight in Sensitive Cases
By mandating a multi-state SIT, the Court ensures:
- Greater impartiality
- Reduced political interference
- Enhanced credibility of the investigation
2. Protects Tribal Communities
The Court recognised the vulnerability of tribal witnesses, ensuring protections that are often overlooked in criminal cases involving marginalized groups.
3. Balances Rights of Accused and Victim
The Court’s interim protections prevent misuse of the law while ensuring a fair probe into serious allegations.
High Court Proceedings to Continue
The Supreme Court requested the Madhya Pradesh High Court to urgently hear the pending writ petition filed by Nilesh’s wife, who had earlier sought intervention against police inaction. The High Court must now consider her petition in light of the SIT-related directions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to order an SIT in the Nilesh Adivasi death case underscores the importance of impartiality in criminal investigations involving vulnerable communities and politically sensitive allegations. By ensuring an independent probe, witness protection, and balanced interim relief, the Court has prioritised truth, fairness, and transparency.
This judgment also reinforces the judiciary’s role in preventing miscarriages of justice where competing narratives and political pressure threaten to derail the investigation.
Also Read
