Supreme Court orders SIT probe into death of former Madhya Pradesh Congress MLA’s driver

3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jul 13, 2026 05:37 PM IST

The Supreme Court noted that an independent probe was necessary in view of the allegations and counter-allegations (File photo).

The Supreme Court Monday asked the Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the 2023 death of Salman Khan, who was the driver of former Congress MLA Vikram Singh.

The court was hearing a plea by Salman Khan’s wife Rajiya Ali. She pointed fingers at a rival BJP candidate and alleged that her husband was run over with a vehicle by people linked to him.

“We have heard the counsel for the parties. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and counter-allegations, it seems to us in the interest of justice and fair play that the subject FIR should be investigated by a team of senior officers,” said a three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

“We consequently direct the DGP, MP, to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising three officers in the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police (IPS cadre) and two officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police…,” it ordered.

The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, directed that the officer heading the SIT should be from the Madhya Pradesh cadre, but not hailing from the state. It added that the officers of the SIT should be from outside the police jurisdiction of the Chatarpur district, where the alleged incident occurred.

It asked the DGP to form the SIT within two days, take over the entire record from the current investigating authority, and proceed with the matter without being influenced by the investigation already conducted.

The court asked the SIT to record and take into consideration the statements of people claiming to be eyewitnesses in the case. It also directed the SIT to complete the investigation dispassionately in two months and added that “further consequences shall depend upon the outcome of the investigation”.

Story continues below this ad

The bench clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or counter-allegations.

Police did not record eyewitness statements, claims petitioner

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the police had not recorded the statements of crucial eyewitnesses who said they were ready to do so.

“There were three-four witnesses. Five people gave sworn affidavits to the police saying they were eyewitnesses, yet their statements were not recorded,” he said.

Appearing for the state, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju denied that the investigation was not proper and said, “…Because…you can’t win in an election… therefore you create witnesses, concoct witnesses, make allegations, but all these will have to be examined.”