The Supreme Court overruled the Bombay High Court and directed that the SIT in the Badlapur ‘fake’ encounter case be led by the DGP. This move aims to ensure a fair and impartial investigation.
In a significant development in the Badlapur ‘fake’ encounter case, the Supreme Court of India has modified the Bombay High Court’s earlier directive concerning the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
The apex court has now mandated that the SIT be constituted under the supervision of the Director General of Police (DGP) of Maharashtra, rather than under Joint Commissioner Lakhmi Gautam, as previously ordered by the High Court.
This decision stems from the case, which revolves around the controversial death of Akshay Shinde.
Shinde, a 23-year-old accused in a sexual assault case involving two kindergarten children in Badlapur, was shot dead by the Thane Police on September 23, 2024.
The police claimed that Shinde attempted to escape by snatching a constable’s gun while being transported from Taloja jail, leading to his death in retaliatory firing.
However, this narrative has been met with skepticism. A Magistrate’s inquiry found substance in the allegations made by Shinde’s parents that their son was killed in a ‘fake encounter’.
The Bombay High Court expressed “shock” over a Thane Sessions Court’s decision to stay the Magistrate’s findings, questioning the propriety of such an order when the matter was already under its consideration.
Justice Revati Mohite-Dere remarked,
“We are shocked. How can the sessions judge pass such an order? Isn’t he aware that we are already seized with this matter and it is being heard in every two weeks? Is this judicial propriety?”
The High Court also criticized the Maharashtra government’s inaction in forming the SIT and registering an FIR against the five police officers involved, despite clear directives issued over a month prior.
ALSO READ: [Badlapur Kindergarten Rape] Father of Accused Moves HC Seeking Burial Spot
The bench warned,
“We are appalled. How can the state government not follow the orders passed by the high court? Criminal contempt proceedings will have to be initiated if the case papers are not transferred today itself.”
In response to these developments, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court by advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay, seeking the formation of an SIT comprising officials of unimpeachable character from various investigating agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The petitioner argued that
“considering the political scenario in the State of Maharashtra and further taking into account the fact that very same people/political parties, who are in power/government in the State of Maharashtra, are also partners in power at Central Government level and experience has shown that even the investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation is found to be influenced by the people in powers and as a matter of fact, CBI has been found to be acting like a ‘caged parrot’ as has been observed by this Court.”
The petitioner further urged that
“in order to ensure further transparency and fairness in the investigation, such SIT needs to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the investigation is also monitored by this Court and thereafter, strict actions are taken against policemen and all those who are involved in killing of the said accused by taking law in to their hands.”
Additionally, the petition called for directives to the Central Government, all State Governments, and Union Territories to ensure that their law enforcement agencies are kept under constant surveillance through the use of body-cams while on duty, and to submit compliance reports to the top Court within a reasonable timeframe.
The Supreme Court’s decision to place the SIT under the DGP’s supervision aims to address concerns about impartiality and ensure a fair investigation into the alleged encounter.
This move underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability within law enforcement agencies.
Case Title:
The State of Maharashtra v. Anna Maruti Shinde’ (SLP(Crl) No. 6334/2025)
Click Here to Read More Reports On Badlapur Case
