The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to respond to a petition filed by Dalvin Suresh, the father of a deceased UPSC aspirant, requesting a change in the Investigating Officer (IO) in the RAU’s IAS Study Circle drowning case. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma issued a notice to the CBI and set November 27 as the next date for the hearing. However, the court declined to stay the ongoing investigation, stating that the prayer was beyond legal grounds.
The petitioner, represented by advocate Abhijit Anand, challenged the trial court’s decision, which had earlier denied the relief sought. On September 20, the Rouse Avenue court dismissed Dalvin Suresh’s application, which called for replacing the IO, assigning an officer of Inspector General rank, monitoring the investigation, and interrogating officials from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Fire Services (DFS), and Delhi Police.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Nishant Garg dismissed the plea, citing that the court lacks authority under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to direct the CBI to register an FIR or conduct a specific investigation. The court noted that an order from August 2, 2024, had already directed the CVC to oversee the CBI investigation, which is being conducted regularly.
The application, submitted by advocate Abhijit Anand, alleged that the RAU’s IAS Study Circle library was illegally operating in violation of the Delhi Master Plan 2021 and various other regulations. It further claimed that the occupancy certificate for the premises was issued without a proper Fire Safety Certificate, and authorities, including the MCD and DFS, were negligent in addressing the safety violations.
The CBI investigation, which was initiated following the Delhi High Court’s August 2, 2024, order, has come under scrutiny from the petitioner, who alleges that the role of MCD and DFS officials in the incident has not been properly investigated. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns that no charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act have been brought against any of the accused.
Advocate Abhijit Anand argued that the investigation has been biased, as no public officials have been questioned or involved, and that the IO seems to be shielding senior officers. The CBI opposed the plea, asserting that the court does not have the power to direct a change in IO or monitor the investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. The CBI also emphasized that the investigation is already being overseen by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and that the charge-sheet will be filed within the legally prescribed timeframe.
