SC delivers split verdict on Maharashtra govt's plea against order to include Hindu and Muslim police officers in SIT

In a surprising development, the Supreme Court on Friday delivered a split verdict on the Maharashtra government's plea seeking review of its earlier September 11 order directing that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the 2023 Akola riots should include senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities. The split verdict of the top court's two-judge bench, headed by Justice Sanjay Kumar and including Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, came after a plea was filed by the Maharashtra government seeking a review of the earlier order. The same judges had unanimously passed the September 11 order after hearing a plea filed by 17-year-old Mohammad Afzal Sharif who alleged that despite his serious injuries, the police failed to register a case or probe the assault. He had moved the apex court as his earlier petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on July 25, 2024. But on Friday, they expressed diverging opinions, with Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissing the review petition, whereas Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed it. Now, after the split verdict, the matter will be placed before the Chief Justice B R Gavai who will decide and compose a larger bench to hear the matter. The court's September 11 judgment had castigated the Maharashtra Police for failing to register a first information report (FIR) and investigate the assault on the 17-year-old boy during the Akola riots of May 2023. In that judgment, the same bench of Judges had ordered that the SIT should probe the matter and it should comprise officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities. The Maharashtra government later sought a review of that direction, arguing that it undermined institutional secularism by requiring religious identity to determine police postings. Justice Sharma on Friday said that in the review petition, various grounds have been raised and they certainly require consideration by this court. The direction in the impugned judgment requiring that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) be composed of officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review under Article 137 of the Constitution, said Justice Sharma. He also clarified that the earlier direction, though well-intentioned, directly impinges upon the principle of institutional secularism, which has been repeatedly affirmed by the court as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In the considered opinion of this court, the review and recall sought of the judgment to the limited extent that it directs or mandates the composition of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on the basis of religious identity requires consideration and, therefore, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within two weeks, said Justice Sharma. On the other hand, Justice Kumar in the review order said that the 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 and there is no impingement of any idealistic principle. He said secularism needs to be actuated in practice and reality, rather than be left on paper to be enshrined as a constitutional principle. No grounds are, therefore, made out to review the directions of this. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed, said Justice Kumar in his review order.