The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought an explanation from the CBI for a delay of over four months in arresting two Madhya Pradesh police officers involved in the alleged custodial death of a 26-year-old Dalit youth.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan also asked the state government to place before it the departmental action taken against the two cops identified as Sanjeev Singh Mavai and Uttam Singh Kushwah.

The top court noted that the cops were not arrested despite its May 15 directive to the CBI, but the agency swung into action after a threat to summon the chief secretary to the court. “Why couldn’t you arrest them in all these days? This is not how a Supreme Court order is to be complied with. Because we said we would ask the chief secretary to be present today, you have acted. You explain why this happened. We are not going to close the matter,” Justice Nagarathna said.

“You must also tell us what happened to the departmental action? What procedure is required to be followed now? They filed for anticipatory bail despite the Supreme Court ordering their arrest. That itself is contempt,” he added.

On September 23, the top court had pulled up the CBI for its failure to arrest the cops involved in the alleged custodial death of Deva Pardhi at Myana police station on July 14. “This can’t go on like this. Despite a Supreme Court order, you are unable to act. Then what is the use? You are pleading helplessness! He is absconding... a proclamation is there, we can’t trace. Please don’t plead helplessness,” the bench had said.

“We will not spare you if anything untoward happens to the sole witness and there is a second custodial event,” it had added.

During Wednesday’s hearing, additional solicitor-general Raja Thakare, appearing for the CBI, informed the court that both the cops had been arrested. “While Uttam Singh was arrested in Indore on September 27, Sanjeev Singh was taken into custody in Shivpuri on October 5. They are currently lodged at Indore jail,” he said.

However, the bench observed that the arrests took place “pursuant to the stringent observations made by this court”. “In the circumstances, we direct that the concerned respondent(s) file an explanation as to why there has been a lapse in complying with the order of this court dated May 15, 2025, and that the arrest of the said officers have been made only on September 27, 2025, and October 10, 2025. The respondent(s)-state may also state the further departmental action that has been taken against the... officers,” the bench said. The matter will be heard again on November 6.