New Delhi: A Delhi court Thursday pulled up the CBI over its probe into the 2024 deaths of three UPSC aspirants at a flooded coaching centre basement in Old Rajendra Nagar, directing further investigation into possible dereliction of duty and corruption by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) officials who allegedly allowed the illegal facility to operate.
Principal District & Sessions Judge cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) Dinesh Bhatt of the Rouse Avenue Court, allowing the deceased’s parent’s protest petition for further investigation said, “There could possibly be a conscious effort to ignore or permit the illegal use of the basement of the said coaching institute. There seems to be no investigation on this aspect of the dereliction of duties in respect of the concerned officials of the civic authorities which allowed the occupiers of the building BP No. 11 (Rau’s IAS Study Circle) to continue their illegal and unauthorised activities in the basement leading to death of three innocent students.”
Posting the main matter for further proceedings on 30 April, the court said, “It appears that either no inspection was carried out or details of violations were specifically omitted and only a general view to circumvent or show a sham compliance of directions of orders of court was carried out.”
In a detailed order out today, Judge Bhatt criticised the CBI’s investigation for failing to look beyond low-level functionaries. The court observed that it is “very difficult to believe that none of the supervisory officers… could have been aware of the illegal and unauthorised use of (the) basement” of a large structure that had been operational for years.
Stressing the need for a thorough probe into the “criminal negligence” that led to the death of the UPSC aspirants, the court directed the CBI to expand the scope of its inquiry. The judge ruled that “merely to say that the lowest official in the hierarchy did not perform his duty will not suffice”, as supervisory officers are responsible for ensuring ground-level compliance.
Consequently, the court ordered the investigating officer to “carry out further investigation in the matter regarding the issue of probable dereliction of duties/corrupt practices by the officials of the MCD” which directly contributed to the “loss of lives of innocent citizens”.
What happened in 2024
The incident dates back to 27 July 2024, when an SUV drove through the flooded lane in front of the centre triggering a backflow of water. The coaching centre’s gate broke open allowing water to enter the basement library. In no time, the flooded basement trapped 30 students, 27 of whom managed to escape or were rescued. However, the bodies of 3 students—aged 21, 25 and 28, from UP, Telangana and Kerala—were found once the water was pumped out.
The Delhi Police then arrested the CEO of Rau’s IAS Study Circle Abhishek Gupta and coordinator Deshpal Singh; they were later granted bail. In the FIR against them, the Delhi Police invoked charges of culpable homicide and causing death due to negligence.
In its August 2024 judgment, the Delhi High Court transferred the case from Delhi Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) emphasising that the transfer was necessary to “ensure public confidence in investigation and the potential involvement of corruption or negligence/inaction by public servants”.
The court observed that three young lives were “snuffed out apparently due to greed and/or negligence and/or failure to discharge duty” and directed the CBI to conduct a “full-fledged investigation” into possible criminal negligence and corrupt practices.
The CBI’s chargesheet filed in September 2024 accused six people of criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Crucially, the CBI did not name the SUV driver, noting that no evidence was found against him.
Allegations of a ‘sham and casual’ investigation
J. Dalvin Suresh, the father of one of the deceased, who found out about his child’s death via media reports the next day, filed a protest petition in December 2025 through advocate Abhijit Anand alleging that the CBI’s investigation has been conducted in a “sham and casual manner” and has failed to explore all angles as directed by the high court. The petition, seen by ThePrint, argues that the CBI has failed to comply with the “constitutional mandate” to act in a fair and justifiable manner.
A central theme of the protest petition is the allegation that the investigating officer has acted in collusion with the accused to “shield the corrupt officials of the MCD, Delhi Fire Services, other officials and other persons”. The petitioner argues that a “fair trial is impossible if there is no fair investigation from all angles”.
The petition highlights significant irregularities regarding the building where the tragedy occurred. Although the building stands over 15 meters tall, the sanction was allegedly obtained through “misrepresentation” to avoid mandatory safety requirements. A major point of contention is that the “completion-cum-occupancy certificate” was issued on 9 August 2021, in the name of Neelam Rani, despite her having died five months earlier on 9 March 2021.
The father’s plea notes that students had filed formal complaints regarding “classes being conducted illegally in the basement” and severe waterlogging just weeks before the incident, yet authorities failed to act.
The petition also brings to light financial concerns, noting that out of a total budget allocated for desilting drains in the Karol Bagh Zone, there is “no material, record, or documentary proof to show the utilisation of… Rs 20,95,107”. The petitioner alleges that the CBI has ignored these financial irregularities and the dereliction of duty by officials responsible for the area’s drainage system.
Parent’s plea for justice
J. Dalvin Suresh seeks the rejection of the current CBI findings in favour of a court-supervised probe. The plea specifically requests the court to “supervise” further investigation and direct the CBI to file a supplementary charge sheet without delay.
As interim relief, the father also requested an “ad-interim ex-parte stay on argument on charge” until the protest petition is resolved, ensuring that the trial does not proceed on the basis of what he deems a flawed investigation.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)