Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: After Maharashtra government took exception and sought review of a September 11 order of a two-judge Supreme Court bench to set up an SIT comprising police officers from Hindu and Muslim communities to probe certain crimes during 2023 Akola communal riots, the same judges gave a split verdict – one allowing the review, the other dismissing it. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, on behalf of Maharashtra, had pleaded before a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma that it would set a dangerous precedent as for every riot the police investigation must be done by assigning probes to officers depending on their personal faith when the police force is secular.Akola SIT case to be posted before CJI for assigning another bench The review petition said the direction for setting up of an SIT would be implemented but the state had taken exception to the direction as far as it impinged on the principle of institutional secularism. Justice Sharma said, “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 SIT on the basis of religious identity’ requires consideration and, therefore, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within two weeks.” But Justice Sanjay Kumar was furious over the filing of the review petition and condemned the manner in which the state made separate mentioning of the plea before both judges on the bench, without disclosing that the other was also being approached. Rejecting the review petition, Justice Kumar said the directions for including officers from both communities in the SIT was issued because of the laxity on part of police to register FIRs and probe the two crimes during the riots. Given the split verdict, the matter would now be posted before the CJI for assigning the review petition to another bench. Justice Kumar said, “As the case related to communal riots…, 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. Needless to state, that should be the objective of the police machinery in the state of Maharashtra but, unfortunately, that did not happen in the case on hand.” “In such circumstances, constitution of an investigation team comprising members of both communities involved in the riot would go a long way in ensuring and safeguarding the transparency and fairness of the investigation…”
