Akola Riots: Supreme Court stays its previous order to have Hindu and Muslim police officers in SIT

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed its September 11 judgment by which it had directed that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the 2023 Akola riots should include senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities [The State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria passed the stay after an earlier Bench delivered a split verdict on November 7 on Maharashtra government’s plea seeking review of the September 11 judgment.

In its September 11 judgment, the Court had castigated the Maharashtra Police for failing to register a first information report (FIR) and investigate the assault on a 17-year-old boy during the Akola riots of May 2023.

The Court had termed it a case of “total dereliction of duty.”

In that judgment, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma had ordered that the SIT should probe the matter and it should comprise officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to ensure transparency and fairness in the investigation.

The State of Maharashtra later sought a review of that direction, arguing that it undermined institutional secularism by requiring religious identity to determine police postings.

On November 7, the same Bench delivered divergent opinions in the review petition.

Justice Kumar dismissed the review petition, upholding his earlier direction, while Justice Sharma took a different view, saying the question required reconsideration.

Justice Kumar also rejected the State’s plea for an open court hearing and criticised the manner in which the review request was placed before both judges separately.

He found no merit in the State’s claim that inclusion of both communities in the SIT violated secularism.

He emphasised that the decision did not offend the principle of secularism but in fact gave it practical effect.

Justice Sharma, on the other hand, allowed the State’s request for an open court hearing and held that the limited question raised in the review petition deserved further examination.

Justice Sharma referred to the State’s submission that while the direction may have been well-intentioned, it could conflict with the constitutional ideal of a religion-neutral administration.

He noted that the State had sought review only on that specific point and directed the matter to be listed for further hearing after two weeks.

With the two judges taking divergent positions, the matter was placed before CJI Gavai to be heard by a larger Bench.

This three-judge Bench today stayed the judgment under review.

[Read Live Coverage]