The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Manjusha, the wife of late Kerala Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Naveen Babu, seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into his death. A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court’s decision, which had earlier declined to order a CBI investigation.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sunil Fernandes argued that Naveen Babu had maintained an impeccable service record throughout his 30-year career and was just seven months away from retirement. He was set to be transferred from Kannur to his home district, and a farewell event had been organised in his honour.

During the function, PP Divya—a leader from the ruling CPM—allegedly made defamatory remarks against him. Soon after, a video containing unverified allegations began circulating, which reportedly caused Babu significant mental distress.

Despite the controversy, Babu had instructed his driver to arrive on time the following morning, as he intended to travel to his home district by train. However, he was found dead at his official residence the next day.

Alleging suspicious circumstances, the petitioner urged the apex court to direct an impartial investigation by the CBI. The court, however, found no sufficient ground to transfer the case and dismissed the plea.

Naveen Babu was found hanging at his official quarters on 15 October 2024. Divya was accused of abetting the suicide by making public corruption allegations against Babu at the farewell event.

The petitioner contended that her husband’s death might not have been a suicide and requested an impartial and independent investigation. Initially, she filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a CBI probe.

On February 6, the single Bench rejected the plea, stating that political affiliations alone were not sufficient to justify a CBI inquiry. The court also noted that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any significant flaws in the existing investigation that would necessitate transferring the case.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ appeal before the HC, highlighting alleged inconsistencies in the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) probe. She argued that the investigation lacked credibility and that the accused could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence due to political connections. She also claimed that the single Bench failed to recognise the exceptional nature of the case.

The Division Bench of the HC reheard the appeal after initially reserving its verdict, as the family expressed dissatisfaction with their counsel’s earlier request for a Crime Branch probe instead of a CBI investigation.

In its March 3 judgment, the High Court once again refused to transfer the case to the CBI. It held that investigations cannot be transferred to CBI based on personal feelings of the victim and there must be reasonable apprehension based on concrete facts. Aggrieved by the HC’s decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which has now dismissed the case.
(With Live Law Inputs)