From Drowning to Murder: How the Court Will Test the Case for Justice for Zubeen Garg

The Assam government wants the country to believe that justice for Zubeen Garg has finally entered its decisive phase. With the filing of a massive chargesheet running into nearly 2,500 pages, accompanied by 12,000+ pages of additional digital and documentary evidence before the Judicial Magistrate, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has projected confidence, finality, and legal preparedness.

Murder charges under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) have been invoked, conspiracy has been “clearly tracked,” and the government claims that conviction is not just possible but likely. Yet, beneath the weight of paperwork and political certainty, fundamental questions refuse to fade: can this chargesheet actually withstand judicial scrutiny, and will it truly deliver justice?

Addressing the media on Friday, the chief minister said the chargesheet had been filed after prolonged investigation and “hard labour,” charging some accused with murder, one with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and others—including PSOs—with various serious offences. He emphasised that the SIT compiled almost 12,000 pages of documentary evidence, including a primary chargesheet of around 2,500 pages after examining witnesses. Calling the investigation “meticulously done,” CM Sarma asserted that although documents were obtained from the Singapore government, the case had been proven through independent Indian evidence. Even if the court were to rule the Singapore documents inadmissible, he claimed, the SIT’s material alone was sufficient to prove the charges.

The chief minister said the government respected the judiciary’s independence and impartiality and would now move to seek a fast-track court from the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and press for the appointment of a special public prosecutor—steps to be taken after the case is committed to the sessions court. He further claimed that the motive and criminal conspiracy had been clearly established, vetted by the Advocate General and Director of Prosecution, and that everyone involved was convinced this was a case of murder where conviction was achievable.

Political reactions, however, reveal a far more fractured picture.

Congress leader and APCC chief Gaurav Gogoi struck a cautious note, stating that how the chargesheet was filed, what evidence was collected, and how the SIT conducted the investigation would only become clear during court proceedings. He reminded that under the present government, several cases had seen chargesheets filed and public confidence projected, only for courts to later dismiss them. The Congress, he said, would stand with the people until justice is actually delivered to Zubeen Garg.

Public sentiment finds expression in the words of singer and composer Manas Robin, who said he wanted the judicial process to conclude quickly and believed the guilty would be punished, adding that he prayed for justice. His statement reflects a wider emotional yearning across Assam for closure after years of uncertainty.

Civil society groups, however, remain unconvinced by emotion or scale. Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS) general secretary Bidyut Saikia said this was not the time to focus on the quantity of evidence but its quality. Courts, he emphasised, do not operate on emotion but on proof.

Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP) chief Lurinjyoti Gogoi reiterated why his party had demanded a CBI investigation from the outset—to ensure that no loopholes remained in a case of this magnitude. He pointed out that the chief minister himself had made several explosive claims earlier, raising expectations that the investigation would be airtight. While expressing hope that justice would be delivered, he made it clear that hope alone could not substitute institutional credibility.

Former BJP leader and ex-Batadrava MLA Angoorlata Deka articulated the anguish felt by many citizens, asking what really happened to Zubeen Garg. She said people were desperate to know the truth and that the pain of unanswered questions continued to haunt them night after night.

The sharpest criticism came from KMSS leader Akash Doley, who alleged that Zubeen Garg was taken to Singapore under the BJP government’s watch and that key figures connected to the Singapore Assam Association had been shielded. He described the SIT chargesheet as incomplete, arguing that it had failed to reach the main culprits. Dalé said a long chargesheet does not guarantee justice and sarcastically remarked that it could be longer than the Ramayana and Mahabharata and still fail if it lacks substance.

He raised serious questions about the investigation, asking why the SIT’s investigating officer never visited the place of occurrence despite the chief minister having earlier publicly declared that Zubeen was a victim of murder. He questioned why Tanmoy Phukan, allegedly linked to a yacht party in Singapore, had not been arrested, and why other members of the Assam Association in Singapore, including its leadership, had not been questioned. Doley argued that courts do not deliver justice based on stories crafted by investigation teams but on evidence placed on record. He reiterated the demand for a CBI probe, stating that even if those already arrested are convicted, justice would remain incomplete if the larger conspiracy is ignored.

Raijor Dal chief and Sibsagar MLA Akhil Gogoi went further, dismissing the document as an election manifesto for Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma ahead of the 2026 Assembly polls. He said this was the first time he had seen an investigating officer file a murder chargesheet without visiting the place of occurrence. Zubeen Garg died in Singapore, he pointed out, yet the chargesheet was filed in Dispur. He said he would throw such a chargesheet into the dustbin, calling it fake, hollow, and spineless.

Leader of Opposition Debabrata Saikia raised questions that cut to the administrative core of the case. PSOs have been charged with criminal conspiracy and breach of trust, but Saikia asked who facilitated their travel to Singapore, including passport clearances and permission to carry arms. If the chief minister claims that the murder conspiracy was planned six to seven years ago, Saikia questioned why his name does not appear in the chargesheet. He also asked whether the Assam government coordinated with the Ministry of External Affairs, the Government of India, and Singaporean authorities. Without clarity on these issues, he argued, the chargesheet remains incomplete.

In contrast to the political storm, Zubeen Garg’s sister Palmee Borthakur expressed relief after the chargesheet was filed. She said the family was satisfied with the charges framed and the legal process followed, adding that she believed the chargesheet had been prepared carefully with all details and evidence. She also welcomed the idea of a fast-track court, saying it would bring further relief.

Legal experts caution that the real test has only begun. Senior advocate Ananda Bhuyan said it was crucial to examine the circumstances under which sections were imposed on the accused. He explained that statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC (now Section 180 of the BNSS), forensic materials, seizure documents, and electronic records would determine where the case is headed. He warned that nothing in a chargesheet can be treated as gospel truth and cited instances where murder charges were diluted by courts when intent could not be proven.

Bhuyan clarified that the CJM court is only a committal court. The accused are scheduled to appear on December 16, after which the case will move to the sessions court. Only during the hearing on framing of charges will it become clear whether the material on record genuinely supports a murder charge under Section 103 of the BNS.

He also highlighted the most complex legal issue in the case: jurisdiction. Zubeen Garg died in Singapore. While Indian law permits investigation of offences committed abroad, complications arise if Singapore police had already investigated the case. The Singapore post-mortem report, which reportedly concluded death by drowning, constitutes substantive evidence. The court will inevitably question how the SIT’s murder theory aligns with that finding. The prosecution’s argument—that Zubeen, an epilepsy patient, was deliberately exposed to water as part of a conspiracy—will have to be proven through credible direct and circumstantial evidence.

Ultimately, justice for Zubeen Garg will not be decided by the length of a chargesheet, the severity of sections invoked, or the confidence of political leaders. It will be decided by whether the investigation answers the hardest questions, withstands cross-examination, and reconciles international medical findings with domestic accusations.

The chargesheet may mark the end of investigation, but it is far from the end of doubt. For Zubeen Garg, justice cannot be symbolic or selective—it must survive the courtroom. Only then will those 12,000 pages truly mean something.

Also Read: Not Just Murder—SIT Charges Accused With Conspiracy, Trust Breach, and Evidence Tampering in Zubeen Garg Case