SC Divided on Religious Composition of Akola Riots SIT, Institutional Secularism vs. Fair Investigation Debate Referred to CJI

New Delhi – In a significant judicial development, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on a review petition filed by the Maharashtra government, challenging an earlier order that mandated the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) composed of both Hindu and Muslim senior police officers to probe a 2023 Akola riots case. The division between Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on this critical issue places the principles of institutional secularism and the need for manifest fairness in communally sensitive investigations in direct contention.

The matter, arising from the THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS Vs. MOHAMMAD AFZAL MOHAMMAD SHARIF, REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) No. 447/2025 , will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India to be referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. This sets the stage for a deeper jurisprudential examination of how the judiciary should address allegations of state inaction and communal bias in law enforcement.

---

The Contentious Directive and the State's Challenge

The case stems from a September 11 order by the same bench, which had heavily criticized the Maharashtra police for its handling of an assault incident during the May 2023 communal riots in Akola. The original order was passed on a petition by a 17-year-old Muslim youth who alleged that he was assaulted and his vehicle torched after witnessing the murder of one Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad. He claimed the police failed to register his FIR and that the subsequent investigation was biased, targeting members of the Muslim community while ignoring the real perpetrators.

Finding a prima facie case of "total dereliction of duty," the Court had ordered the constitution of a high-level SIT. Uniquely, the order specified that the SIT must "comprise senior officers from both the Hindu and Muslim communities." This was intended to ensure transparency and fairness in a case fraught with religious undertones.

The State of Maharashtra sought a review of this directive, launching a robust legal challenge grounded in constitutional principles. The government argued that while the intention was noble, the direction to form an SIT based on religious identity "directly impinged upon the principle of institutional secularism," which the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld as a cornerstone of the Constitution's Basic Structure. The State contended that such an order implicitly prejudges public servants and presumes communal bias within the police force, undermining the secular fabric of state institutions.

A Bench Divided: Two Divergent Judicial Philosophies

The review petition resulted in two sharply contrasting opinions, illustrating a fundamental disagreement on the practical application of secularism.

Justice Sanjay Kumar: 'Secularism Must Be Practiced in Reality'

Justice Sanjay Kumar delivered a firm dissent, finding no grounds to review the September 11 order. He dismissed the plea for an open court hearing and upheld the original directive, arguing that the context of communal riots demanded extraordinary measures to secure public confidence.

He observed that the case prima facie "hinted at a religious bias" and 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."

In a powerful articulation of his judicial philosophy, Justice Kumar remarked that "secularism needs to be actuated in practice and reality, rather than be left on paper to be enshrined as a constitutional principle." He asserted that in matters touching upon religious oppression, the state machinery's actions must be manifestly transparent and fair.

Revisiting the facts of the case, Justice Kumar reiterated the Court's earlier finding of police failure, stating that the inaction of the local police and the Superintendent of Police in not registering an FIR "clearly manifesting total dereliction of duty on their part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness." He concluded that the state machinery had failed to demonstrate the requisite transparency and fairness, thus justifying the Court's intervention.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma: A Need for Deeper Consideration

In contrast, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma found merit in the Maharashtra government's plea. He noted that the review was sought on the "limited extent" of the SIT's religious composition. Acknowledging the gravity of the constitutional question raised, he allowed the State's request for an open court hearing and issued a notice on the petition, making it returnable in two weeks.

Justice Sharma's order indicates a belief that the issue of including officers based on their religious identity warrants a more thorough examination. His decision to issue notice suggests that the State's argument—that such a directive could be seen as an affront to institutional secularism—is a substantial question of law that cannot be summarily dismissed.

Background of the Akola Riots Case

The legal battle is rooted in the communal violence that erupted in Akola, Maharashtra, in May 2023, reportedly triggered by an objectionable social media post about Prophet Muhammad. The violence led to the death of Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and injuries to several others, including the respondent, a Muslim youth.

The respondent alleged that he witnessed Gaikwad being assaulted by four individuals with a sword and an iron pipe. When he stopped, he too was attacked. He claimed that despite his statement being recorded by the police at the hospital, no FIR was registered based on his complaint. The Maharashtra police disputed this, claiming the respondent was not in a condition to give a statement. The police stated they had investigated the murder, filed a chargesheet, and recovered the murder weapons at the behest of the accused. The respondent, however, maintained that the investigation was biased and sought judicial intervention for a fair probe and action against erring officials.

Legal and Systemic Implications

The split verdict brings a crucial debate to the forefront of constitutional law:

1. Reconciling Secularism with Remedial Justice: The case forces a confrontation between two vital principles. On one hand, institutional secularism dictates that state organs, including the police, should operate without regard to religion. On the other hand, in a communally polarized environment, can the judiciary mandate religiously diverse teams to counteract perceived systemic bias and ensure justice is not only done but is seen to be done?

2. The Scope of Judicial Intervention: The larger bench will likely have to delineate the boundaries of the judiciary's power under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution. Can a court's remedial orders, aimed at ensuring a fair investigation, override the established principle that a police officer's religion is irrelevant to their official duties?

3. Message to Law Enforcement: The final outcome will send a powerful message to police forces across the country. A validation of Justice Kumar's stance could empower courts to mandate diverse investigative teams in similar cases, putting pressure on law enforcement to demonstrate impartiality. Conversely, an affirmation of the State's argument could reinforce the secular character of policing but may leave victims of alleged biased investigations with fewer judicial remedies.

As the matter now awaits the constitution of a larger bench by the Chief Justice of India, the legal community will be watching closely. The eventual decision will have profound and lasting implications for the interpretation of secularism, the conduct of criminal investigations in communally sensitive cases, and the very nature of judicial oversight in India.