SC delivers split verdict on Maharashtra Govt’s plea for review of Hindu-Muslim SIT probe into Akola communal riots

The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on the Maharashtra Government’s petition seeking a review of the court’s direction to set up an SIT comprising police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to probe 2023 Akola communal riots.

Justice Sanjay Kumar, who had authored the original September 11 verdict, refused to review it while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma agreed to hear the review plea in open court.

Now, the matter will be placed before the Chief Justice of India for listing before a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

Clashes broke out in the Old City area of Akola in May 2023 after a social media post on Prophet Muhammad went viral. One Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad was killed and eight people, including the petitioner, were injured. Sharif moved the Bombay High Court through his father against police officers for not filing an FIR but the high court dismissed the petition, suspecting his bona fides.

In its September 11 verdict, the top court said when police officials don uniforms, they must shed their personal and religious predilections and biases. Slamming the Maharashtra Police for dereliction of duty and sheer carelessness in not registering an FIR in the matter, the top court directed the state’s home secretary to constitute an SIT, comprising senior police officers from Hindu and Muslim communities, to register an FIR and probe the matter.

However, the Maharashtra Government sought review of the September 11 verdict, contending that the direction to constitute an SIT, comprising senior police officers from Hindu and Muslim communities, would impinge upon the principle of institutional secularism and that it amounted to prejudging a communal bias on the part of public servants.

Justice Kumar dismissed the review petition, saying, “…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 to be carried out and there is no impingement of any idealistic principle. Be it noted that secularism needs to be actuated in practice and reality, rather than be left on paper to be enshrined as a constitutional principle.”

Justice Sharma, however, disagreed with him, saying various grounds raised in the review petition certainly required the court’s consideration.

“In the considered opinion of this court, as review and recall has been sought of the judgment to the limited extent that it directs or mandates the composition of the Special Investigation Team on the basis of religious identity, it requires consideration and, therefore, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within two weeks,” Justice Sharma said.