SC Orders SIT with Hindu-Muslim Officers to Probe 2023 Akola Clashes
September 11, 2025
Bench Criticises Police Bias, Mandates Mixed Team
Teen’s Petition Spurs Fresh Inquiry into May 2023 Violence
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: September 11, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has directed the Maharashtra government to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising both Hindu and Muslim police officers to probe the communal riots that erupted in Akola in May 2023. The bench held that a police officer “must rise above all kinds of biases” and ensure fair investigation in communal violence cases.
Communal clashes broke out in the old city area of Akola on May 13, 2023, allegedly provoked by a controversial social media post about the Prophet Muhammad. The violence claimed one life—Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad—and left eight people injured, including two policemen who were caught in the melee.
The case reached the top court after a 17-year-old victim, Mohd Afzal Mohd Sharif, filed a petition saying he was brutally assaulted during the riots and the local police failed to register any case despite recording his hospital statement on May 15, 2023.
Sharif had moved the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench seeking an SIT to investigate both the assault on him and the communal killings. On July 25, 2024, the High Court refused relief, observing that he had not approached police promptly and that the chargesheet against the accused rioters was already filed, suggesting an “ulterior motive” in his plea.
Aggrieved by the High Court order, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. A two-judge bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe heard the matter and issued the landmark direction on September 11, 2025, to form an impartial SIT for the Akola case.
“When a person dons the police uniform, they must rise above all kinds of biasness including on the ground of religion and caste and must discharge duty as per the law,” the court remarked, sharply criticising the local force for its “biased” handling of the riot investigation.
The court directed the state Home Secretary to constitute the SIT without delay. It specified that senior officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities should be included to guarantee balanced inquiries into both the assault on Sharif and the communal violence that followed a social media post.
Under the Constitution, police forces are vested with the duty to protect life and property impartially. The court underscored that an unbiased probe is critical to uphold the rule of law and to restore public confidence in law enforcement during communal flare-ups.
Petitioner’s counsel argued that serious cognizable offences came to light once Sharif’s statement was recorded in hospital, yet no FIR was lodged. This failure, they claimed, allowed rioters to evade accountability and deepened the victim’s sense of injustice.
Background records show that four alleged assailants attacked Gaikwad with swords, iron pipes and rods before turning on Sharif. While a chargesheet was later filed against some accused in the murder of Gaikwad, no case was registered for the attack on the teenage petitioner until his plea reached the Supreme Court.
Legal experts say the order is unprecedented in mandating religious balance within an SIT. They believe it will set a strong precedent for future communal violence cases, ensuring that investigators reflect the diversity of affected communities and act without prejudice.
Civil society groups have welcomed the decision. They contend that a mixed-community SIT will deter biased policing in communal clashes and reassure minority communities that their grievances will be heard and addressed fairly.
Although the Supreme Court did not set a strict timeline for the SIT to complete its probe, the state is expected to act swiftly given the court’s emphasis on prompt and impartial inquiry. The Home Secretary must report back on the team’s constitution within days.
By insisting on community representation in the SIT, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message: law enforcement agencies must not allow prejudice to dictate investigations, especially when communal tensions are high. This ruling is poised to influence how authorities handle similar cases nationwide.
ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES
Supreme Court Acquits Uttarakhand Doctor Under Right of Private Defence
Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence in POCSO Case, Clarifies ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine
Supreme Court Refuses Plea to Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 Match
Delhi HC Battle Over Sunjay Kapur’s Rs 1,900 Crore Asset Transfer
Supreme Court Unveils Four-Step Test to Quash Frivolous Criminal Cases
Supreme Court Acquits Woman Heated Neighbourhood Quarrels Not Abetment to Suicide
Top 5 Landmark Judgments & Their Practical Impact (with Summaries)