The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the Akola riots case, debating the formation of a Hindu-Muslim SIT. Justice Sanjay Kumar stressed that secularism must be practiced in reality, not merely upheld as a constitutional principle.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on Friday on a review plea filed by the Maharashtra government against its September 11 order directing the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising Hindu and Muslim police officers to probe the assault on a Muslim boy during the 2013 Akola riots.
The two-judge bench, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, differed sharply on whether the earlier ruling required reconsideration, prompting the matter to be referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for the constitution of a larger bench.
Justice Sanjay Kumar stood by the September 11 order, observing that the religiously diverse composition of the SIT was necessary to ensure transparency, fairness, and public confidence in the investigation.
He noted that the police had failed to register a criminal case on the Muslim boy’s complaint, amounting to a “patent dereliction of duty.”
“Secularism should be practiced in reality, not left enshrined as a Constitutional principle on paper,”
Justice Kumar remarked.
He criticized the Maharashtra government for refusing to file written submissions and called out what he termed a “dubious” practice of simultaneously mentioning of the review plea before both judges.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, however, disagreed with Justice Kumar, stating that the religion-based composition of the SIT “needed a re-look” as it could undermine institutional secularism within the police force. He said the issue would be heard in open court after two weeks and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for a larger bench.
Both judges, however, agreed that they were “on the same page to the extent that we agreed to disagree.”
Maharashtra’s Argument
Appearing for Maharashtra, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta apologized for the simultaneous mentioning of the plea and argued that the state was concerned the order might set a dangerous precedent, leading to demands for religion-based benches or investigative teams in the future.
He said that while the police is a uniform and secular force, such orders risk dividing it along religious lines.
The court, however, observed that “while the force may appear uniform, biases seem to exist within.”
Background
The case arose from the 2023 communal riots in Akola, Maharashtra, triggered by an objectionable social media post on Prophet Muhammad. A 17-year-old Muslim boy was allegedly assaulted with iron rods by four men who also beat an auto-rickshaw driver, Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad, to death, reportedly mistaking him for a Muslim.
Despite the boy’s statement that the attackers were Hindus, police named Muslims in the case and failed to register his complaint.
The boy later produced a snapshot of his hospital statement, which police dismissed as unreliable.
Invoking Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Supreme Court noted that the superintendent of police was bound to register a case once aware of a cognizable offence.
Case Title:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3976 OF 2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Hindu-Muslim
