Adv. Nilesh C. Ojha cites Abhay Kurundkar precedent decorated Maharashtra cop was later convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; notice demands scrutiny of alleged fabrication and suppression of evidence in SSR probe.
Mumbai/New Delhi: The President’s Medal conferred upon CBI officer Nupur Prasad, who played a key role in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s probe into the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, has come under controversy, with the Gen Z Lawyers Association, through Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha, issuing a formal notice to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs seeking revocation of the honour, initiation of prosecution and departmental proceedings, and re-investigation or further investigation into the SSR case.
The Association has contended that serious complaints and documentary material questioning the manner in which crucial evidence was collected, interpreted and presented during the SSR investigation require independent scrutiny before a prestigious national honour attached to the investigating officer is allowed to stand.
The allegations against Nupur Prasad, including allegations concerning fabrication, suppression or manipulation of evidence, have not been judicially established and remain allegations requiring investigation and adjudication. The notice, however, argues that the very seriousness of those allegations makes an independent examination necessary rather than permitting the medal itself to be treated as a certificate insulating the officer or the investigation from scrutiny.
Medal Cannot Become Immunity from Investigation Notice to Home Ministry
According to the Gen Z Lawyers Association, the Union Home Ministry and other competent authorities have been called upon to examine whether complaints, representations, judicial proceedings or other adverse material relating to Nupur Prasad’s role in the SSR investigation were available when her name was processed for the President’s Medal and, if so, whether such material was placed before and considered by the medal-screening authorities.
Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha has sought action at three separate levels revocation of the medal; criminal and departmental proceedings if fabrication, suppression or manipulation of evidence is established; and re-investigation or further investigation into Sushant Singh Rajput’s death and the conduct of the previous investigation by an independent and competent team.
The notice maintains that “a President’s Medal is an honour for distinguished service; it cannot become immunity against criminal law, departmental accountability or judicial scrutiny.”
The Association has further demanded an examination of whether crucial evidence was properly collected, preserved and investigated or whether any material was allegedly fabricated, suppressed or manipulated with a view to protecting persons who ought to have faced investigation.
Abhay Kurundkar Precedent: President’s Medal Did Not Prevent Murder Conviction
The demand assumes significance because Maharashtra has already witnessed a striking case demonstrating that the conferment of a President’s Medal does not prevent subsequent investigation, prosecution or even conviction for a serious crime.
Former police inspector Abhay Kurundkar received the President’s Medal on January 31, 2017. He was subsequently arrested on December 7, 2017 in connection with the murder of Assistant Police Inspector Ashwini Bidre-Gore.
When the controversy reached the Maharashtra Legislature in March 2018, then Minister of State for Home Ranjit Patil stated that Kurundkar and his associates had been arrested, Kurundkar had been suspended and the Maharashtra Government had already written to the Centre seeking revocation of his President’s Medal.
Patil also clarified that the medal had been awarded before Kurundkar’s arrest a chronology that highlighted the possibility of a serious gap between the processing of police honours and the emergence or communication of adverse material within the law-enforcement machinery.
Decorated Officer Ultimately Sentenced to Life Imprisonment
The Kurundkar controversy did not end with his arrest.
In April 2025, the Panvel Sessions Court convicted Kurundkar in the Ashwini Bidre-Gore murder case and subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Two other accused, Kundan Bhandari and Mahesh Phalnikar, were sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for their respective roles.
Reports concerning the judgment also recorded the trial court’s surprise over how an officer facing such serious scrutiny could have cleared the process leading to a prestigious police medal.
The Kurundkar episode therefore provides an important institutional lesson: a medal does not determine innocence, does not override subsequently discovered evidence and cannot prevent the Government from reconsidering an honour when serious adverse material emerges.
Question Before Home Ministry: What Was Known When Nupur Prasad’s Medal Was Processed?
The Gen Z Lawyers Association has now sought application of the same principle to the controversy surrounding Nupur Prasad.
The Association wants the Government to determine:
- whether complaints or adverse material concerning the handling of the SSR investigation existed when Nupur Prasad’s recommendation was processed;
- whether such material was disclosed to the competent medal-screening committee and vigilance authorities;
- whether an independent integrity assessment was undertaken before the honour was approved; and
- whether the allegations concerning fabrication, suppression or manipulation of evidence warrant further criminal or departmental investigation.
The Association’s case is not that the medal itself proves wrongdoing. Its contention is precisely the opposite a medal cannot be relied upon to answer allegations of wrongdoing. Those allegations must stand or fall upon evidence and an independent investigation.
Another Maharashtra Controversy: Abdur Rahman Case
The notice also assumes importance against the backdrop of an earlier Maharashtra controversy involving IPS officer and former police commissioner Abdur Rahman.
In proceedings initiated by activist Rashid Khan Pathan, material was placed before the Bombay High Court which, according to the petitioner, contained adverse police reports and allegations concerning the officer’s conduct, including allegations relating to criminal activities and attempts to protect accused persons.
A Division Bench that included Justice Bhushan Gavai had issued notice to the concerned authorities in the PIL.
The episode was cited as another example of why information held by one branch of the police or Government must reach authorities responsible for vigilance clearance and processing honours.
The precise allegations against Rahman, their eventual adjudication and the orders in those proceedings would, however, have to be assessed strictly from the judicial record.
“If Evidence Was Fabricated, Medal Revocation Is Only the Beginning”
The Gen Z Lawyers Association has taken the position that if an independent inquiry ultimately establishes deliberate fabrication, destruction, suppression or manipulation of evidence by any investigating officer for the purpose of protecting an accused, withdrawal of a medal would be only one consequence.
Such findings could potentially attract criminal prosecution, disciplinary proceedings and, subject to applicable service rules and due process, removal or dismissal from service.
At the same time, the Association’s allegations against Nupur Prasad cannot be treated as established guilt unless they are proved through the appropriate legal process.
That distinction, the notice argues, is exactly why an independent investigation is necessary.
Demand for Re-Investigation or Further Investigation of SSR Case
The Association has consequently requested the Home Ministry and competent authorities not to confine their examination merely to the medal.
It has sought re-investigation or, alternatively, further investigation into the Sushant Singh Rajput case, with specific scrutiny of the evidence and investigative decisions that are now being challenged.
According to the notice, if allegations concern the integrity of the earlier investigation itself, permitting the same disputed conclusions to answer those allegations would defeat the purpose of independent scrutiny.
The demand is therefore for a competent and independent team to examine both the underlying evidence relating to Sushant Singh Rajput’s death and the conduct of the officers responsible for the earlier investigation.
From Abhay Kurundkar to SSR Probe A Larger Question of Institutional Accountability
The controversy ultimately raises a question larger than any individual officer.
The Abhay Kurundkar case demonstrated how a decorated police officer could subsequently be arrested, prosecuted, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. It also demonstrated that the Government can initiate the process for revocation of a President’s Medal when circumstances warrant reconsideration.
The lesson, according to the Association, is simple:
- A President’s Medal cannot close an investigation.
- It cannot validate disputed evidence.
- It cannot extinguish complaints.
- And it cannot place any police or CBI officer beyond the reach of law.
The Gen Z Lawyers Association has therefore called upon the Home Ministry to place the relevant complaints and material concerning Nupur Prasad before the competent authorities, examine whether the medal was processed after a complete disclosure of relevant facts, and order an independent investigation into the accusations.
If the allegations are disproved, the officer stands vindicated. If they are proved, the law must take its course irrespective of rank, agency or medal.
The Abhay Kurundkar case, the Association says, has already demonstrated one fundamental principle:
A medal is an honour not immunity.
