Police Must Act Without Bias: Supreme Court Orders SIT Investigation Into Assault Case Arising From Aloka Communal Riots

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the order of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed the writ petition of a minor boy who, while being an eyewitness to a murder, was himself assaulted and injured. The grievance put before the Court was that despite the assault constituting cognizable offences, the police did not register an FIR against the accused persons, and the Superintendent of Police also failed to act upon a subsequent written complaint.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while deciding the matter, observed “…when members of the police force don their uniforms, they are required to shed their personal predilections and biases, be they religious, racial, casteist or otherwise. They must be true to the call of duty attached to their office and their uniform with absolute and total integrity. Unfortunately, in the case on hand, this did not happen.”

Senior Advocate Abhay Mahadeo appeared for the appellant. Advocate Aaditya Aniruddha Pande represented the State.

Background

The appellant, a 17-year-old minor, had sustained head injuries during the communal riots in Akola in May 2023 and was admitted to Icon Hospital as a medico-legal case. Though the police were notified of his admission, no FIR was registered.

The appellant claimed that, on the second day of his admission, the District Collector, along with police personnel, visited him at the hospital and took his statement, wherein he disclosed all details of the incident. He asserted that he was an eyewitness to the murderous assault on an autorickshaw driver, who was attacked under the mistaken belief of being Muslim, after which the assailants turned on him. Despite his disclosure, no action was taken.

The appellant had later submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Akola, but no FIR was registered against the assailants.

His writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging police inaction was also dismissed, with the Court questioning the bona fides and observing that the petition appeared tainted with ulterior motives. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

Referring to its judgments in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014) and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), the Apex Court reiterated that once information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory. The Court remarked that “It cannot be disputed that the appellant was subjected to an assault during the riots, on the night of 13.05.2023, requiring his hospitalization for his head injury. At the very least, the assault upon him would have constituted an offence under Sections 324 or 325 or 326 of the IPC, which are all cognizable, and required decisive and prompt action on the part of the police as soon as they came to know about it.”

The Bench recorded that despite the appellant being admitted to hospital as a medico-legal case with head injuries, no FIR was registered, observing that “the inaction of the officer-in-charge of the Old City Police Station, Akola, despite being made aware of Medico-Legal Case No. 5580, involving the appellant, and his admission in the hospital, and the failure in following through by recording his statement at the earliest opportunity and registering an FIR in that regard, clearly manifests total dereliction of duty on his part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness.”

The Court further held that it was “distressing” to note the Superintendent of Police failed to ensure compliance, emphasising that “…there is no explanation forthcoming as to whether he even undertook an enquiry to satisfy himself about the truth or otherwise of the information received, as mandated by the provision. This conduct on the part of a superior police officer of no less a rank than a Superintendent of Police is indeed a cause for great concern.”

The Bench also underscored that whether the deceased, to whose murder the appellant was an eyewitness, was indeed murdered under the mistaken impression of being a Muslim, and whether the assailants were not from that community, were matters that “had to be ascertained after thorough and proper investigation.”

Noting that the affidavits filed by the police before the Bombay High Court attempted to undermine the appellant’s account and that the High Court had accepted these affidavits without proper scrutiny, the court observed that “Neither the Police Inspector nor the High Court are correct in their assumption and understanding that it was for the appellant or his relatives to pursue the police to take necessary steps in that regard and that the police were not required to take any steps, despite their knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence.”

The Supreme Court also took note of the State’s response to the proceedings. It was observed that despite notice having been issued, the counter affidavit was filed not by a senior functionary but by the Police Inspector of the local station. The Court remarked that “it is surprising that, in a matter involving the State, represented by the Chief Secretary, and its Home Ministry, wherein a serious issue has been raised before the highest Court in the country, no senior official chose to file an affidavit before this Court and left it to an Inspector of the local police station to do the needful.” The Court found this particularly troubling as serious allegations had been made against a Superintendent of Police, who was specifically impleaded by name.

Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the Secretary, Home Department of the State of Maharashtra, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) consisting of senior officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities, to ensure impartiality in the investigation. The SIT has been directed to complete its investigation within three months and place its report before the Court.

The Home Secretary of Maharashtra was also directed to take departmental action against the police officials who failed to perform their statutory duties and to ensure that sensitisation programmes are conducted to prevent recurrence of such derelictions.

Cause Title: Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1100)

Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Abhay Mahadeo with Advocates Fauzia Shakil AOR, Tasmiya Taleha, Mr. M.huzaifa, Adv.

Respondents: Advocates Aaditya Aniruddha Pande AOR, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Chitransha Singh Sikarwar.

Click here to read/download Judgment