New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stayed its earlier direction mandating that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the 2023 Akola riots must include senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities.
The matter came up before a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria after a split verdict was delivered on November 7, 2025, by a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in a review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra.
The two judges had expressed divergent views on whether the direction prescribing communal representation in the SIT was constitutionally sustainable, prompting reference of the matter to the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
Upon hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Maharashtra, the present Bench passed an interim order staying operation of the judgment dated September 11, 2025, which directed inclusion of senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities in the SIT. The Court issued notice to the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing after four weeks.
It was argued that the power to constitute an investigating team lies exclusively with the State, and neither the accused nor the complainant can insist on officers of a particular faith being included.
The stay order pertains to the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment dated September 11, 2025, in The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, in which a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma had ordered constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe the May 2023 Akola riots. The Bench had directed inclusion of senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to ensure transparency and fairness in the investigation.
The Court had severely criticised the Maharashtra Police for a “total dereliction of duty” and “sheer carelessness” in handling the communal violence that erupted over a social-media post concerning Prophet Muhammad. The riots led to the death of one person, Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad, and injuries to several others, including the petitioner Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, then aged 17.
In the review petition filed by the State, Justice Sanjay Kumar upheld his earlier directive, stating that the order did not offend secularism but rather gave it “practical effect.” However, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma differed and held that the issue deserved further examination, noting that prescribing communal representation in investigative bodies might conflict with the constitutional ideal of a religion-neutral administration.
The difference of opinion resulted in reference to the Chief Justice, following which the present Bench considered the matter and issued the interim stay.
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif
