CM’s “Slip of Tongue” Exposes Gap Between Assam Government and Police on Zubeen Case

The veil over the death of cultural icon Zubeen Garg continues to thicken — not because of investigative complexity, but because of contradicting signals from the highest office in the state. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s own statements on the matter now appear to have backfired, adding more confusion to an already opaque investigation.

Earlier on Sunday, while speaking to reporters at Kokrajhar during the oath-taking ceremony of the new BTC Chief Executive Member, the Chief Minister categorically stated that Zubeen Garg’s post-mortem report “will not be made public.”

“We will not make the report public. Anyone who wishes to see it can visit the CID office and review the report there,” Sarma said, adding that public disclosure would “render the report of no value in a court of law.”

But that very assurance — ostensibly meant to project transparency — has now been exposed as hollow.

Just days later, Congress spokesperson and criminal lawyer Reetam Singh on Tuesday visited the CID headquarters in Ulubari to follow through on the Chief Minister’s statement. While presenting with his Bar license and identification, Singh formally requested access to the post-mortem report, assuring officials that he would not take photographs and sought to review it only as a professional.

What followed, however, tells a different story.

“I was made to wait for 15–20 minutes,” Singh said. “Then a DSP-level officer came and told me that though the Chief Minister has said it publicly — it was actually a slip of the tongue. The report cannot be shown without prior permission of the court. Police cannot make it public.”

That “slip of the tongue” — as the officer reportedly put it — has exposed a striking inconsistency between the Chief Minister’s claim and the CID’s stand.

It also raises a more fundamental question: Who is actually steering this investigation — the CID, the Home Department, or the Chief Minister’s office?

In previous high-profile cases, the Assam Police and CID had been quick to brief the media, issuing daily updates, naming witnesses, sharing leads, and often holding press conferences led by DIG- or IG-rank officers. Yet, in the Zubeen Garg case — arguably one of the most emotionally charged and publicly followed cases in recent Assam history — there has been radio silence.

“The DIG or any other top officer hasn’t conducted a single press briefing. Why this silence?” Singh asked. “CID officer Rosie Kalita allegedly refused to show me the report. But if there are significant developments — such as forensic or toxicology findings — why hasn’t she briefed the public yet?”

The question cuts to the heart of growing public suspicion. If the report contains nothing out of the ordinary, why the secrecy? But if it does, does the silence hint at something far graver — perhaps a shift in the case’s trajectory from death by negligence to murder of the BNS?

It may be mentioned that Zubeen Garg’s death has already rattled Assam’s collective psyche. The ambiguity surrounding his post-mortem report has now only deepened the public’s unease. What should have been a straightforward process of disclosure, governed by due legal norms and administrative clarity, has devolved into a bureaucratic maze — where one statement from the Chief Minister contradicts his own earlier assurance.

Observers note that Sarma’s handling of the issue reflects a larger pattern of political overreach into investigative independence. The Chief Minister’s repeated interventions — promising transparency one day and justifying secrecy the next — have blurred the line between governance and investigation.

“Even the Chief Minister himself seems unclear about how he wants the investigation to proceed,” Singh remarked. “You cannot one day tell the public that they can view the report at CID, and the next day claim it’s legally restricted. This inconsistency only raises suspicion.”

In Assam’s recent history, few cases have attracted this degree of public scrutiny and emotional intensity. Zubeen Garg was more than a singer; he was a cultural movement, a symbol of Assamese identity. His sudden death has left a wound that the public demands to see healed — not with political rhetoric, but with truth and transparency.

Yet, weeks after the incident, no forensic update, no toxicology summary, and no official press briefing have emerged. The CID, once vocal on every small development in other cases, has chosen a conspicuous silence.

At this point, it is not just about what’s in the report — it’s about why it’s being hidden, and who gains from the silence.

Until the government stops treating the people of Assam as spectators in their own tragedy, the mystery around Zubeen Garg’s death will continue to echo — not just in songs, but in the state’s growing distrust of its own institutions.

Also Read: From Luxury to Lock-Up: Shyamkanu Wants a Book, Siddharth Demands Perfume