Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered a split verdict on the Maharashtra government’s plea seeking review of an order directing the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to examine allegations of the State’s failure to investigate an assault during the 2023 Akola riots. Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed the review petition, holding that the earlier direction to include senior officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities in the team was necessary to ensure transparency in the investigation. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, however, held that the issue concerning the composition of the team required further consideration and directed that the matter be listed for open court hearing after issuing notice to the respondent.

The case arose from the Maharashtra government’s plea seeking review of an earlier order of the Supreme Court directing the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe allegations concerning the State’s failure to investigate an assault during the 2023 Akola riots. The State filed a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules. The petition challenged the portion of the earlier order that directed the Special Investigation Team to comprise senior police officers belonging to both Hindu and Muslim communities. The petitioners contended that this direction, though intended to ensure transparency, affected the principle of institutional secularism, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It was submitted that such a composition could suggest that secular fairness depends on the religious identities of officials and that it amounted to prejudging potential bias on the part of public servants.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Death Can Be Presumed Only After 7 Years From Date Of Disappearance; No Compassionate Appointment If Employee Retired Earlier

The respondent opposed the review, relying on the Court’s earlier observations that the police had failed to register an FIR despite information being provided about the commission of a cognizable offence. The record indicated that neither the concerned police station nor the Superintendent of Police took necessary action, showing dereliction of duty. The Court noted that the incident occurred in the context of communal riots and that the decision to direct formation of a mixed-community investigation team was made to ensure objectivity and fairness in inquiry. No additional statutory provisions beyond the constitutional and procedural bases for review were invoked, and the evidence discussed was confined to the conduct of the officers and the administrative response during the riots.

Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that “the dubious and unprecedented practice of making separate mentions for seeking such hearing before both the Judges on the Bench simultaneously, without disclosing the fact that the other was also being approached, requires to be condemned in no uncertain terms.”

On the merits of the petition, he stated that “no ground is made out to review the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3976 of 2025.” The Bench recorded that the principal contention was that “the direction to constitute a special investigation team, comprising senior police officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities, would impinge upon the principle of institutional secularism and amounts to prejudging communal bias on the part of public servants.”

Justice Kumar further noted that “the question that arose in the appeal was as to what extent the police had discharged their task of being vigilant, prompt and objective in enforcing and securing the mandate of the law without bias and subjectivity.” He recorded that “despite information being given as to the commission of a cognizable offence, neither the officers of the police station concerned nor the Superintendent of Police took necessary action by at least registering an FIR, clearly manifesting total dereliction of duty on their part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness.”

Explaining the rationale for the team’s composition, he observed that “as the case related to communal riots, involving Hindu and Muslim communities, and the hues of this case prima facie hinted at a religious bias, 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.”

Justice Kumar referred to Balram Singh vs. Union of India, noting that “India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession and practice of any faith.” He stated that “transparency and fairness in their actions must be manifest in matters even remotely touching upon secularism and religious oppression.”

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, in his separate opinion, observed that “this Court while allowing the Criminal Appeal has directed the State to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising several police officers of different communities.” He recorded that “in the Review Petition, various grounds have been raised and they certainly require consideration by this Court.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court: International Workers Employed In India Required To Contribute To Employees’ Provident Fund

Referring to the State’s submissions, Justice Sharma quoted the grounds stated in the prayer clause: “Because the direction in the impugned judgment requiring that the Special Investigation Team 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.” He further noted that “the said direction, though well-intentioned, directly impinges upon the principle of institutional secularism, which has been repeatedly affirmed by this Hon’ble Court as a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.”

Justice Sanjay Kumar stated: “No grounds are, therefore, made out to review the directions of this Court. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma directed: “In the considered opinion of this Court as review and recall has been sought of the judgment to the limited extent that it directs or mandates the composition of the Special Investigation Team on the basis of religious identity requires consideration and, therefore, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within two weeks. List the matter after two weeks.”

Case Title: The State of Maharashtra & Others v. Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif
Case Number: Review Petition (Criminal) No. 447 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma