The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a split verdict on a plea filed by the Maharashtra government seeking a review of its earlier order directing the formation of a special investigation team (SIT) comprising police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to probe the 2023 Akola communal riots.
Justice Sanjay Kumar, who had authored the original verdict on September 11, dismissed the review plea, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the matter required consideration and directed that it be listed for open-court hearing. The issue will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate bench.
The Maharashtra government contended that the court’s earlier direction for an SIT formed along religious lines undermines the principle of institutional secularism and prejudges a communal bias among public servants.
However, Justice Kumar rejected this argument, noting that the earlier order had specifically questioned whether police authorities acted vigilantly and objectively in enforcing the law “without bias and subjectivity.”
He observed that despite clear information regarding the commission of a cognisable offence during the riots, the concerned police officers and the superintendent of police failed to even register an FIR. “This clearly manifested total dereliction of duty on their part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness,” he wrote.
Justifying the original direction, Justice Kumar reiterated that since the case involved communal riots between Hindus and Muslims, the investigation’s transparency could only be ensured through an SIT comprising officers from both communities.
“In such circumstances, the constitution of an investigation team comprising members of the communities involved in the communal riot would go a long way in ensuring and safeguarding the transparency and fairness of the investigation,” he said.
He added that secularism must be “actuated in practice and reality, rather than be left on paper to be enshrined as a constitutional principle.”
Citing a 2024 verdict, Justice Kumar said India’s model of secularism neither supports nor penalises any religion, but the State machinery—composed of people from different faiths—must demonstrate fairness “in matters even remotely touching upon secularism and religious oppression.”
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed with his colleague, holding that the grounds raised by the Maharashtra government required judicial consideration.
He noted that since the review petition sought reconsideration only to the extent that the judgment “directs or mandates the composition of the Special Investigation Team on the basis of religious identity,” it merited an open-court hearing. “Let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within two weeks,” Justice Sharma directed.
The September 11 judgment had strongly criticised the Maharashtra Police for failing to register an FIR over an alleged murder during the 2023 Akola communal clashes. The bench had observed that when police don uniforms, “they must shed their personal and religious predilections and biases.”
It had ordered the state’s home secretary to constitute an SIT comprising senior police officers from Hindu and Muslim communities to probe the case.
The riots broke out in Akola’s Old City area in May 2023 after a social media post on Prophet Muhammad went viral, resulting in the death of one person—Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad—and injuries to eight others, including petitioner Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif.
Sharif had alleged that the local police refused to register his complaint despite identifying four assailants. His plea before the Bombay High Court was dismissed for lack of bona fides, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
The split verdict now leaves the question of religious composition in the SIT to be settled by a larger or differently constituted bench to be decided by the Chief Justice.
