The Supreme Court, on Thursday, April 18, dismissed a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the death of Naveen Babu, a former Additional District Magistrate (ADM) in Kerala. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran declined to interfere with the Kerala High Court’s decision, which had earlier refused to order a CBI investigation into the matter.
According to LiveLaw, senior advocate Sunil Fernandes, appearing for the petitioner, Naveen Babu’s wife Manjusha, argued that the ADM had maintained “an impeccable service record for over 30 years” and was nearing retirement, with just seven months left in service. Sunil submitted that just before his transfer from Kannur to his home district, a farewell event was organised where the then district panchayat president PP Divya, a leader of the ruling CPI(M), allegedly made defamatory statements against Babu.
Following the event, a video containing “unsubstantiated allegations” was circulated, which, according to the petitioner, caused Naveen Babu immense mental distress. After the farewell, he had instructed his driver to pick him up the next morning to catch a train to his native district. The next day, however, Babu was found dead at his official residence.
The petitioner alleged that the circumstances surrounding the death were suspicious and called for an investigation by an “independent and impartial agency like the CBI”.
However, the Supreme Court bench refused to transfer the probe, observing that no sufficient grounds were made out for such an intervention.
Naveen Babu was found dead in his official quarters on October 15, 2024. His wife has alleged a possible homicidal angle and alleged that Divya’s political influence could hinder a fair investigation.
The plea for a CBI investigation was first moved before the Kerala High Court, but was dismissed on February 6. The HC observed that a CBI probe cannot be directed merely due to the accused’s political connections and noted the petitioner failed to highlight any substantial flaws in the current investigation.
The petitioner later filed a writ appeal, reiterating that the investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) lacked credibility, and expressed concern that those involved could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The family also raised dissatisfaction with their earlier counsel’s request for a probe by the Crime Branch probe instead of CBI.
A division bench of the HC heard the appeal a second time, which too was rejected on March 3. The bench held that “investigations cannot be handed over to the CBI based on personal sentiments” and said that there is a need for “reasonable apprehension supported by concrete facts”. It was challenging this decision that the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.