Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial intervention in connection with the vandalisation of the statue of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar situated at Bajar Chowk, Village Dargada, Police Station Dhuma, District Seoni allegedly occurred during the night of 11-02-2025, a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait,* CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., directed the SHO/IO and the Superintendent of Police, Seoni, to continue the investigation until the actual culprits are booked and file a monthly progress report before the concerned Magistrate.
In the instant matter, the petitioner’s grievance is twofold — (i) inaction or inadequacy in police response to the act of desecration and (ii) an alleged attempt to shield the culprits by those responsible for the investigation. The petitioner sought a direction for an independent enquiry by an agency other than the police, into both the incident and the conduct of the police officials handling the matter.
The petitioner emphasised on the symbolic and emotional significance of Dr. Ambedkar’s statue and expressed grave concern over the delay and quality of the police investigation. The petitioner stressed the need for accountability and independent oversight.
On the other hand, respondents/State submitted that prompt action had been taken upon receiving the information through the Dial 100 facility at around 9:00 PM on 11-02-2025, and ASI reached the spot by 9:30 PM. Subsequently, a formal complaint was registered at 12:10 PM on 12-02-2025, followed by registration of FIR under Sections 298, 299, and 324(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It was stated that although a person later claimed to have overheard confessions of some individuals regarding the vandalism, the statement was found unsubstantiated upon verification. It was lastly submitted that efforts are still ongoing to identify and arrest the actual culprits.
The Court observed that since “FIR has already been lodged,” and an active investigation is ongoing under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police (SP), no further direction for independent enquiry is warranted at this stage. The Court stated that the affidavit filed reassured the Court that the Superintendent of Police, Seoni is “fully cognizant of the seriousness of the matter that has hurt sentiments of public.” The Court noted the assurance that “every effort is being made to ensure that the investigation is thorough, impartial and leads to identification and prosecution of culprits.”
The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the investigation shall continue, and a monthly report shall be filed before the concerned Magistrate.
[Jitendra Ahirwar v. State of M.P., WP-14657-2025, Decided on 07-05-2025]
*Judgment by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri D.K. Upadhya, Counsel for the Petitioner;
Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, Deputy Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondent/State.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
