The Supreme Court of India has been increasingly resorting to the formation of special investigation teams (SITs) to probe sensitive cases, signaling a potential acknowledgement of the overburdened nature of national investigating agencies. This approach aims to ensure effective and timely investigations, addressing concerns that delays can frustrate the outcome of crucial cases.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court constituted two such SITs to investigate FIRs against Madhya Pradesh minister Kunwar Vijay Shah and Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. These SITs are composed of IPS officers from outside the states where the alleged offenses occurred. The court has emphasized that these teams must include a woman IPS officer as one of the three members.
Justice Surya Kant, heading a bench, articulated the rationale behind forming these specialized teams. He noted that national investigating agencies are often overburdened, leading to delays that can compromise investigations. The court has observed that SITs have delivered effective results in the past, and in certain instances, the court might even monitor the investigations to ensure cases reach a logical conclusion.
When forming SITs, the Supreme Court has issued specific directives. Firstly, all members must be IPS officers. Secondly, all three investigating officers must be from outside the state where the alleged offenses were committed. In one case, the court directed the Madhya Pradesh DGP to form an SIT of three IPS officers from outside the state, headed by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General, with the other two being of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. While generally refraining from monitoring probes, the court may require the SIT to submit outcomes, considering the specific circumstances of a case.
This move towards establishing special SITs reflects a broader concern about the capacity and efficiency of existing investigative bodies. The Supreme Court's intervention underscores the need for a more streamlined and focused approach to handling critical investigations, ensuring impartiality and preventing delays.
The trend of the Supreme Court opting for SITs also mirrors concerns raised about other vital institutions. For instance, in January 2025, the Supreme Court criticized the Centre and States for delays in appointing Information Commissioners, which are essential for upholding citizens' rights under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The court noted the Central Information Commission (CIC) had significant vacancies and a backlog of appeals, questioning the purpose of the institution if it lacked the personnel to function effectively. Justice Kant also highlighted the issue of Information Commissions being overloaded with candidates predominantly from bureaucratic backgrounds, advocating for broader representation.
Furthermore, the increasing reliance on judicial intervention and special bodies could be indicative of systemic challenges within the existing administrative and regulatory frameworks. The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine in 2024, which previously required judges to defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous federal laws, could lead to increased litigation and potential delays as courts and agencies adapt to the new standard. This shift might also result in inconsistent rulings and greater uncertainty across various sectors.
The Supreme Court's recent inclination to constitute special SITs highlights a critical need for efficient and impartial investigations in a context where national agencies face immense pressure. By proactively addressing these challenges, the judiciary aims to uphold the integrity of the investigative process and ensure timely justice.
