Bombay High Court Urges Police to Accelerate Disha Salian Inquiry

In a decisive move that has resonated beyond the courtroom, the Bombay High Court has demanded that the Mumbai police accelerate its investigation into the 2020 death of celebrity manager Disha Salian. The bench’s directive—issued this Thursday—calls for a swift completion of the inquiry, sparking debate over law‑enforcement timelines and raising parallels for how corporate human‑resource departments should manage their own investigative processes.

Background and Context

On 8 June 2020, Disha Salian fell from the 14th floor of a residential building in Malad, north Mumbai, and tragically died. The Mumbai police opened an accidental death report (ADR) and launched a formal inquiry that, according to court records, has been running despite five years passing since the incident. The case has taken a political turn when Disha’s father, Satish Salian, filed a petition alleging gang rape and murder, and demanding a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe and charges against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray.

With the jurisdictional question already fraught, the court’s insistence on speed comes at a time when public trust in investigative agencies is tenuous. Chief Justice A. S. Gadkari remarked, “It has been five years. The police only have to ascertain whether the death was a suicide or culpable homicide.”

The order aligns with a growing trend of courts demanding tighter controls on police inquiry timelines, a push that, on the surface, reflects a desire for accountability but also underscores a systemic need for procedural efficiency.

Key Developments in the Case

• Judicial Request for Prompt Closure: The bench, comprising Justices Gadkari and R. R. Bhonsale, is urging the police to present a definitive conclusion within the next three months.
• Dispute Over Document Transfer: Satish Salian alleges that crucial statements and investigative documents have not been handed over to him, a plea that the court found “unacceptable” given that he is the victim’s father.
• Mandate for Post‑Mortem Report: The court has specifically ordered the police to provide the post‑mortem findings, citing the need for transparency.
• Political Interference: A. A. Thackeray’s application to intervene was dismissed, but the court demanded a hearing for his responses before final adjudication.
• Benchmark for Timelines: By setting a concrete deadline, the court introduces a referential benchmark that may influence how future police inquiries are scheduled and monitored.

“Why still inquiry? It has been five years. Someone has died. You just have to ascertain if it was a suicide or culpable homicide,” the bench asked, underscoring the perceived disproportionate duration of the investigation.

Impact Analysis: Why This Matters to HR Professionals

While the incident is a criminal matter, the court’s insistence on evaluating police inquiry timelines has far‑reaching implications for internal corporate investigations. Both entities—law enforcement and large organizations—deal with sensitive data, the rights of victims (or employees), and public perception. Lessons can be distilled into several actionable points:

• Transparency Builds Trust: Just as the court demanded disclosure of investigative documents, HR departments must provide clear timelines and regular updates to employees involved in misconduct investigations.
• Defined Milestones Reduce Ambiguity: Establishing cut-off dates and intermediate checkpoints prevents investigative paralysis.
• Independent Oversight: The court’s invitation for a third‑party (CBI) probe indicates that independent reviews can enhance credibility.
• Balanced Vigilance: Speed should not come at the cost of thoroughness; both police and HR must avoid hasty decisions that may compromise justice or due process.

For international students and professionals working in multinational firms, these developments signal a possible shift toward more stringent audit trails and compliance reporting in HR policies.

Expert Insights and Practical Guidance

During a media briefing, Professor Ananya Menon, a specialist in corporate governance from the University of Mumbai, noted, “The High Court’s directive underscores the need for robust timelines. HR teams can adopt similar frameworks—issue a written inquiry plan, assign a lead investigator, and publish a projected completion date.”

Three practical steps for HR managers to emulate these timelines include:

• Develop an Internal Investigation Charter: Outline purpose, scope, authority, and confidentiality standards.
• Set a Public Timeline and Monitor Progress: Publish a Gantt chart and update stakeholders weekly.
• Engage External Auditors Early: Invite third‑party review to validate findings and mitigate allegations of bias.