Akola clashes: SC gives split verdict on plea against SIT comprising Hindu, Muslim cops

On September 11, allowing an appeal by petitioner Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, the bench of Justices Kumar and Sharma ordered that “in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to direct the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to constitute a special investigation team, comprising senior police officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities, to undertake an investigation into all the allegations made by the appellant, by registering an FIR in connection with the assault upon him on 13.05.2023, and take appropriate action thereon as warranted.”

The state of Maharashtra and others filed a review petition against the court order. On Friday, Justice Kumar dismissed the review plea saying, “on merits, no ground is made out to review the order…”

Justice Kumar wrote, “The main contention sought to be urged in the review petition is that the direction… would impinge upon the principle of institutional secularism and amounts to prejudging communal bias on the part of public servants. This contention loses sight of the fact that this court specifically noted that the question that arose in the appeal was as to what extent the police had discharged their task of being vigilant, prompt and objective in enforcing and securing the mandate of the law without bias and subjectivity. The facts set out in the order clearly demonstrate that despite information being given as to the 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.”

The judge said, “The case related to communal riots, involving Hindu and Muslim communities, and the hues of this case prima facie hinted at a religious bias; 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. Needless to state, that should be the objective of the police machinery in the State of Maharashtra but, unfortunately, that did not happen in the case on hand.”

Justice Kumar also referred to the 2024 judgment in Balram Singh vs Union of India which said, “India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith. This being the ideal, the State machinery must tailor its actions accordingly but the inescapable fact remains that such State machinery ultimately comprises members of different religions and communities. Therefore, transparency and fairness in their actions must be manifest in matters even remotely touching upon secularism and religious oppression. In such circumstances, 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…”

Justice Sharma on the other hand said, “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 SIT on the basis of religious identity’ requires consideration and, therefore, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within two weeks.”

Clashes broke out in the Old City area of Akola in May 2023 after a social media post on the Prophet went viral. The clashes resulted in the death of one Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and injuries to eight people, including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Mohammad Sharif, four persons assaulted Gaikwad with a sword, iron pipe and other objects.