The Maharashtra government has filed a review petition with the Supreme Court, challenging an order issued on September 11. This order mandated the creation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising both Hindu and Muslim police officers to investigate the assault on a Muslim boy during a communal riot in Akola in 2023. Representing the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the order as unprecedented and expressed the state’s willingness to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The review petition was scheduled for a hearing in chambers before Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma. While the state had previously offered to form an SIT with Muslim officers, Mehta emphasized that selecting officers based on religious identity could set a problematic precedent. Justice Kumar acknowledged the state’s request, stating that the court would consider it during the review, while also defending the original order. He noted the need for decisive action in challenging times, suggesting that “unprecedented times require unprecedented orders.”
Mehta proposed that if the issue stemmed from a lack of trust in the state police, a CBI probe could be considered. However, the court clarified that trust in the state police’s capability was not the primary concern; rather, the specific circumstances of the case warranted the unique directive. The court affirmed its trust in the state police’s ability to conduct thorough investigations but reiterated that this particular situation demanded a distinct approach.
Mehta conveyed the state’s significant apprehension regarding the order’s implications, stating, “Let not there be SIT of Hindu and Muslim officers. I am ready to even constitute an SIT of all Muslims. It is a serious matter that should be remedied…” Justice Kumar assured Mehta that he would discuss the matter with the other judge before making a final decision.
The case originated when a 17-year-old Muslim boy from Akola approached the Supreme Court seeking an SIT probe into the assault, which occurred during a communal riot sparked by an offensive social media post about Prophet Muhammad. His plea had been previously rejected by the Bombay High Court.
The Supreme Court highlighted apparent lapses by the police in its initial investigation. Specifically, the court noted that the police had disregarded the boy’s statement claiming four men assaulted him, leading to the death of autorickshaw driver Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad. The police had identified Muslim individuals in the case, despite the victim asserting that Hindus were responsible, possibly due to a mistaken identity of the driver.
Further concerns were raised about the police’s handling of the boy’s statement at the hospital, where they deemed him unfit to provide one. The absence of a formal complaint led to no case being registered initially. The boy’s claim of having a recorded hospital statement, which police dismissed without a signature, was also noted. His father later submitted a complaint to the Akola police superintendent.
Citing Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court emphasized the superintendent’s duty to inquire and register a case for cognizable offenses. The court also criticized the in-charge of Akola’s Old City Police Station for failing to register a case despite being aware of the medico-legal incident involving the boy.
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of impartiality for law enforcement officers, stating, “When members of the police force don their uniforms, they are required to shed their personal predilections and biases, be they religious, racial, casteist, or otherwise. They must be true to the call of duty attached to their office and their uniform with absolute and total integrity.” Consequently, the court directed the state home secretary to initiate disciplinary action against the superintendent and station-in-charge for dereliction of duty. The secretary was also instructed to brief all police personnel on their duties, and the SIT was ordered to submit its report within three months.