The iron gates of justice creaked open in Parbhani as the Bombay High Court stepped in to demand accountability in the death of Somnath Suryawanshi, a 35-year-old Dalit law student who never returned home from police custody.
Suryawanshi had been picked up by police in November 2024, following protests sparked by the desecration of a replica of the Indian Constitution near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The official narrative claimed he died of a heart attack. His mother, however, alleged a far darker truth—illegal detention, custodial torture, and a cover-up stitched together with silence and threats.
On July 4, a Bench comprising Justice Vibha V Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh intervened, pulling no punches in its interim order: an FIR must be filed. The police had failed in their basic duty, the Court said, and the lapse could no longer be buried under bureaucratic delays.
The Court directed that the FIR be registered based on the mother’s complaint, dated December 18, 2024, and that a Deputy Superintendent of Police—not local officers—take over the investigation. The order came with a one-week deadline.
The backstory is both tragic and volatile. On November 10, 2024, the Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha led a protest in Parbhani, claiming atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh. In the midst of this, someone vandalized a Constitution replica placed beside an Ambedkar statue—an act that ignited widespread outrage.
The following day, counter-protests erupted. Police swept into neighborhoods, reportedly arresting individuals indiscriminately. Somnath Suryawanshi was among them. According to his mother, he had only participated peacefully. Yet, what followed, she claims, was a savage beating behind bars. His postmortem would later list the cause of death as “shock due to multiple injuries.”
But it didn’t end there.
She alleges police offered hush money—₹50 lakh—and pressured her to cremate Somnath far from Parbhani, quietly and quickly. The intent, she told the Court, was to erase the trail of accountability.
Her plea also demanded action against police personnel for misconduct against women detainees, suspension of the officers involved, and clarity on procedures post-magisterial inquiries in custodial death cases.
In its order, the Court cited the Lalita Kumari guidelines, reiterating that any cognizable offence mandates an FIR. Prima facie, such an offence existed here.
While the FIR is now on the books, other critical prayers—including policy-level directions on custodial death protocols—remain under consideration. The next hearing is slated for July 30.
Justice, it seems, has finally been stirred awake in this chilling tale of death, silence, and resistance. Whether it will rise fully remains to be seen.
