BREAKING| Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Review Against Order Forming SIT With Hindu & Muslim Officers To Probe Akola Riots Case
"Secularism should be practiced in reality, not left enshrined as a Constitutional principle on paper", Justice Kumar said.
The Supreme Court today delivered a split verdict on Maharashtra government's plea seeking review of the order directing constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe allegations regarding the State failure to probe an assault during the 2023 Akola Riots.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order on the State's plea seeking review of its September 11 order which, while criticizing the Maharashtra police for failing to probe the assault, directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team to investigate the allegations. The SIT was ordered to comprise senior officers from both the Hindu and Muslim communities.
The State filed the instant petition seeking review of the order, claiming that the direction to constitute an SIT comprising officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities, though well-intentioned, directly impinged upon the principle of institutional secularism, which has been repeatedly affirmed by the Court as a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. It further contended that the direction amounted to prejudging communal bias on the part of public servants.
Hearing the submissions, while Justice Kumar found no ground for review, Justice Sharma noted that the review was sought to the limited extent that the SIT was directed to comprise officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities. Accordingly, Justice Sharma allowed open Court hearing and issued notice on the petition.
Secularism needs to be practiced in reality, not left enshrined on paper: Justice Kumar
Rejecting the plea for review, and an open Court hearing, Justice Kumar observed that the case related to communal riots and prima facie hinted at a religious bias. Therefore, "it was necessary to direct constitution of an investigation team comprising senior police officers of both communities so as to maintain transparency and fairness in the investigation."
The judge further emphasized that "secularism needs to be actuated in practice and reality, rather than be left on paper to be enshrined as a constitutional principle".
Referring to the September 11 order, Justice Kumar opined that the facts clearly demonstrated that despite information being given about commission of a cognizable offence, neither the officers of the police station concerned nor the Superintendent of Police took necessary action by at least registering an FIR, "clearly manifesting total dereliction of duty on their part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness".
Further, the judge commented that transparency and fairness in investigation should be the objective of state machinery, but "that did not happen in the case". "transparency and fairness in their actions must be manifest in matters even remotely touching upon secularism and religious oppression", Justice Kumar said.
The judge also condemned as "dubious and unprecedented" the practice of the matter being separately mentioned for open court hearing before both the judges simultaneously, without any one being informed that mentioning was made before the other as well.
Background
A series of communal riots broke out in May, 2023 in Akola, Maharashtra apparently following an objectionable social media post regarding Prophet Muhammad. The incident resulted in the death of one Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and injuries to the respondent (17-year old at the time).
As per the respondent, he witnessed 4 persons assaulting a person (Gaikwad) by a sword, iron pipe and other objects. When the respondent stopped at the site, he was also assaulted and his vehicle burned by the assailants. The respondent was admitted in a hospital and his statement recorded by the police, but no FIR was registered.
On the other hand, the Maharashtra police disputed the factum of respondent's statement being recorded by it. It was claimed that information regarding his admission in the hospital was received, but when an officer went there, the respondent was not in a position to speak. The murder incident was investigated and chargesheet filed against accused at whose behest murder weapons were also recovered.
The respondent alleged that instead of the real culprit, FIR was registered against certain Muslim persons and the investigation was biased. He sought action against the erring officials and a proper investigation.
Case Title: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS Vs. MOHAMMAD AFZAL MOHAMMAD SHARIF, REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) No. 447/2025