Hindu man killed after Prophet post: SC slams police for ignoring Muslim victim’s complaint

The Supreme Court on Thursday flagged the police officials’ erroneous dereliction of duty after a Muslim victim approached them to file an FIR against the assailants involved in the attack and killing of a Hindu man, which followed a religious post about Prophet Muhammad on social media, for which the petitioner, himself an eyewitness, was also attacked by the same persons, while reminding the force that they must shed their biases when they don uniforms.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma came down heavily on Maharashtra Police, observing that officials had shown sheer carelessness in failing to register an FIR, and directed the state’s home department secretary to constitute a special investigation team comprising senior police officers from Hindu and Muslim communities.

“Needless to state, 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,” the bench observed, stressing that police officers “must be true to the call of duty attached to their office and their uniform with absolute and total integrity,” and remarking that “unfortunately, in the case at hand, this did not happen.”

The court’s directions came in connection with the clashes that broke out in May 2023 in the Old City area of Akola after a religious post about Prophet Muhammad went viral on social media, which resulted in the death of one Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and injuries to eight persons, including the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, four persons attacked Gaikwad with weapons, including a sword and an iron pipe, after which they damaged his vehicle and assaulted him on his head and neck, following which he was hospitalised and his statement recorded, but no FIR was registered.

Sharif, through his father, approached the Bombay High Court against the police officers for failing to file an FIR. Still, the high court dismissed his petition on grounds of suspecting his bona fides. At the same time, the Maharashtra Police submitted that his claim of being an eyewitness was not substantiated and asserted that, although information of his hospital admission was received, he was not in a position to speak when the officers reached the hospital.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected this reasoning, holding that the affidavits filed by the police inspector of the Old City Police Station attempted to attribute motives to the petitioner and were accepted by the high court, but noted that “it was for the police to investigate the truth or otherwise of the specific allegations made by the appellant, a 17-year-old boy, who asserted that he was an eyewitness to the murder of Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and was himself assaulted by the very same assailants.”

Ordering accountability, the court directed the secretary to initiate disciplinary action against the erring officials for their patent dereliction of duty and further instructed that measures be taken to “sensitise the rank and file in the police department as to what law requires of them in the discharge of their duties.”

The bench added that the SIT’s investigation report must be placed before the court within three months.