Will Zubeen Garg’s Case Collapse in Court Due to Legal Oversights?

The mysterious death of Assam's most beloved singer, Zubeen Garg, has triggered the intensification of debates, as Raijor Dal president and Sibsagar MLA Akhil Gogoi launched a blistering attack on the state government and SIT probing the case.

At a news conference at his residence in Sivasagar on Tuesday, MLA Gogoi minced no words in accusing the Assam government of mishandling the investigation, dubbing it a "political drama" intended to fool the people rather than find the real culprit. He maintained that people across Assam were "deeply dissatisfied" with the manner in which the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the SIT have been conducting the probe.

Doubts Over Legal Procedure

Gogoi, known for frequently positioning himself as a watchdog over the accountability of government functioning, claimed to have closely studied the legal aspects of the case. He pointed out a fundamental procedural lacuna-the absence of any Letter Rogatory (LR), essentially an official judicial request that has to be sent to a foreign country for collecting evidence.

"Without a formal Letter Rogatory, any foreign evidence obtained cannot be admissible in an Indian court," Gogoi argued, citing the verdict of the Madras High Court in the Jayalalithaa case. He said no such legal letter has been sent to Singapore, where the incident took place, and therefore Singapore did not have any legal obligation to co-operate.

He even claimed the SIT's visit to Singapore was a mere formality. "SIT head Munna Prasad Gupta went to Singapore and came back empty-handed. This entire process lacks seriousness and legal foundation," Gogoi said, warning the case might collapse in court for want of admissible proof.

Also Read: SIT Team Led by APS Moramee Das Leaves for Mumbai in Connection with Zubeen Garg Death Probe

A List of Unanswered Questions

Gogoi also raised several unanswered questions that, in his view, go to the heart of the case:

• Was Zubeen allowed to jump into the water without a life jacket?
• Was the yacht driver questioned or brought to India for interrogation?
• Were the seawater samples or affiliated substances ever tested scientifically?

He further alleged that Union Minister Pabitra Margherita, who played a role in organizing the North East Festival in Singapore, should have been among the first to be questioned. Instead, Gogoi criticized the SIT for interrogating “a tea vendor and a Bihu committee member” while ignoring individuals who were directly connected to the event where the tragedy occurred.

Political Undercurrents and the Charge of ‘Dramatization’

Launching a direct attack on Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Gogoi accused him of “dramatizing the issue for political mileage.” He said the CM's recent public statement, in which he described Zubeen's death as "murder," was both premature and politically motivated. “If the Chief Minister and SIT really believe it was murder, why haven’t they visited the exact location of the incident?” he asked.

In his words, without proper coordination between Indian and Singaporean authorities, this case risks becoming “a hollow investigation designed to pacify public sentiment.”

The SIT’s Side of the Story

Contrary to Gogoi's accusations, SIT chief and Special DGP Munna Prasad Gupta maintained that the investigation was moving ahead with solid progress. Speaking to the media earlier on November 1, Gupta confirmed that the Singapore authorities had officially handed over Zubeen's post-mortem and toxicology reports, along with key documents from the Singapore Port Authority — materials he described as “crucial” to the ongoing probe.

Gupta maintained that a charge-sheet would be filed within the next three months and that the statements of Singapore-based witnesses would be formally transferred to Assam through due process of law. The SIT, he said, had already recorded statements from nearly a hundred persons related to the case and was working “round the clock” to ensure justice.

He also hinted that former manager of Zubeen, Tarsem Mittal, may be summoned if necessary, and asserted that no angle was being left unturned.

Clash of Law and Perception

This is where exactly the moot point of legal controversy, diplomacy, and public emotion rests. While Akhil Gogoi raises valid questions regarding legal procedure and transparency, the work of SIT itself suggests that the case is anything but static.
What does remain clear, however, is that public faith is eroding, and absent visible, legally sound progress, the investigation risks losing credibility — both in the eyes of the people and the courts.

Be it the warnings of Akhil Gogoi proving prophetic or the SIT managing to restore trust, all this will depend on one thing alone: transparency backed by procedural integrity.