Saida Khatoon & Ors. v. Smt. Vandana Dadel & Ors., 2026

The petition was filed by the family members of Mahfuz Ahmad, alleging violation of safeguards governing custodial detention.

The petitioners alleged that Ahmad was illegally detained by police officials on 1 March 2025.

According to the allegations, Ahmad was subjected to custodial torture over several days.

The petitioners alleged that Ahmad was subsequently produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in an injured condition.

The circumstances surrounding the medical fitness certificate issued before his remand were questioned.

The petitioners alleged that Ahmad's condition subsequently deteriorated and that he ultimately died.

The contempt petition alleged violation of the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

The State informed the High Court that departmental proceedings had already been initiated concerning the allegations.

The Officer-in-Charge of Nawabazar Police Station had allegedly been suspended and issued a show-cause notice pending the departmental inquiry.

During the proceedings, the High Court examined the medical fitness certificate dated 6 March 2025.

The Court questioned Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Medini Rai Medical College Hospital, regarding the certificate.

The doctor stated that only a photocopy of the original fitness certificate had been produced before him.

He further stated that he subsequently authenticated the document after verifying the relevant hospital records.

The Court examined the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerning Ahmad's remand and the recording of satisfaction regarding his medical fitness.

The Bench found aspects of the record requiring closer examination, particularly the reference to something having occurred “later on” in the order dated 6 March 2025.

The Court noted that rival factual claims had created disputed questions of fact concerning the circumstances surrounding Ahmad's detention, medical condition and subsequent death.

The High Court therefore considered that a preliminary determination of contempt could not appropriately be made without first establishing the underlying facts.

The Court directed the Principal District Judge, Palamu, to nominate a Judicial Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under Section 196(2) BNSS.

The inquiry was directed to commence within 15 days and the report was required to be submitted within three months.

The matter was directed to be listed again after receipt of the inquiry report.

The Jharkhand High Court directed a judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the alleged custodial torture and subsequent death of Mahfuz Ahmad.

The Division Bench held that before initiating contempt proceedings, it was necessary to first determine whether any State functionary had actually violated the safeguards laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

The Court found that the rival claims raised disputed questions of fact which could not appropriately be resolved merely on the basis of the contempt proceedings.

The Principal District Judge, Palamu, was directed to nominate a Judicial Magistrate for conducting the inquiry under Section 196(2) BNSS.

The inquiry was directed to commence within 15 days.

The Judicial Magistrate was directed to submit the inquiry report within three months.

The Court examined the circumstances surrounding the medical fitness certificate dated 6 March 2025 and questioned the concerned hospital authority about its authenticity and verification.

The Court also scrutinised the remand order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and raised questions concerning certain portions of the order.

The State's submission regarding the pending departmental proceedings and suspension of the Officer-in-Charge was taken on record.

The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand while reiterating the seriousness of custodial violence.

The Court emphasised that custodial violence is an affront to the rule of law and that allegations of such conduct require an independent examination.

The matter was directed to be listed after the inquiry report is received.

The judgment places an important procedural requirement on contempt proceedings arising from alleged custodial violations: the underlying violation must first be established. The Court did not treat the allegations themselves as sufficient to conclude that contempt had occurred.

This approach is particularly significant because contempt jurisdiction concerns an alleged disobedience or violation of a binding judicial mandate. Here, the alleged mandate arose from the safeguards prescribed by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu.

The Court therefore distinguished between allegations of violation and a judicial finding that such violation actually occurred.

The disputed factual circumstances concerning Ahmad's detention, physical condition, medical certification and subsequent death made an independent fact-finding exercise necessary.

The medical fitness certificate became an important aspect of the inquiry because the Court was informed that the doctor had initially been shown only a photocopy and later authenticated it after verification of hospital records.

The Court's scrutiny of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's remand order also demonstrates the importance of a clear judicial record when a person allegedly appears before the court in an injured or medically compromised condition.

The Court specifically questioned the use of the expression “later on” in the remand order and sought to understand the basis on which that portion of the order had been recorded.

The direction for an inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate nominated through the Principal District Judge provides an independent mechanism for determining the disputed facts.

The decision also reflects the constitutional importance of Article 21 in cases involving custodial violence. A person deprived of liberty remains entitled to protection against torture and unlawful physical abuse.

The reference to D.K. Basu reinforces that procedural safeguards relating to arrest and detention are not merely administrative formalities. They are safeguards against abuse of State power.

The Court's observation that custodial violence is an affront to the rule of law places the issue within the broader constitutional framework of accountability of State authorities.

The State's departmental proceedings and suspension of the concerned police officer were relevant developments, but the High Court nevertheless considered an independent judicial inquiry necessary because of the disputed factual circumstances.

The judgment does not finally determine whether custodial torture occurred or whether any particular State officer violated the D.K. Basu safeguards. Those questions are to be examined through the inquiry.

The ultimate significance of the order lies in its insistence that serious allegations of custodial violence must be subjected to credible fact-finding before contempt liability is determined.