‘Set aside personal biases, do duty with total integrity’: SC to Maha police

The apex court held clear lapses on the part of the police who disbelieved the victim’s statement that four men had assaulted him with iron rods and wounded an autorickshaw driver, Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad, who later died

NEW DELHI: The police must shed personal biases and act with absolute integrity to their call of duty, said the Supreme Court on Thursday as it pulled up the Maharashtra police for failing to register a case of assault on a Muslim minor boy during a communal riot that broke out at Akola in 2013.

Supreme Court of India (ANI)

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma took serious exception to the “patent dereliction of duty” on the part of superintendent of police (SP) Sandip Ghuge and the station in-charge of Old City Police Station, Akola, who refused to register the boy’s complaint. It directed the home secretary to instruct the rank and file of the police department on their duties, and also the setting up of a special investigation team (SIT) comprising senior Hindu and Muslim officials to investigate the assault and submit a report to the court within three months.

“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,” the bench said, directing the home secretary to initiate disciplinary action against the errant police officials.

The then 17-year-old victim approached the top court after the Bombay high court rejected his petition to set up an SIT to probe his complaint and take action against the erring officials. He was represented by advocate Fauzia Shakil, who narrated the incidents of May 13, 2023, when riots were triggered in the Old City area following an objectionable social media post on Prophet Muhammad.

The apex court held clear lapses on the part of the police who disbelieved the victim’s statement that four men had assaulted him with iron rods and wounded an autorickshaw driver, Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad, who later died. The police had named Muslims in the FIR even when the victim told them that the assailants were Hindus and had assaulted Gaikwad under the mistaken impression that he was a Muslim.

The police justified their action by stating that the victim was unfit to give a statement when they visited him in hospital, and as he failed to later submit a complaint, no case was registered. The victim claimed to have a snapshot of his statement recorded at the hospital, which the police dismissed as unreliable as it lacked any signature. On June 1, 2023, the victim’s father submitted a written complaint to the SP of Akola.

The bench noted that Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandated the SP to conduct an inquiry and register a case if it disclosed a cognisable offence. It rued the fact that a superior police officer had conducted himself thus. It also pulled up the in-charge of the Old City Police Station, Akola, who despite being aware of the medico-legal case involving the victim and his admission to hospital, failed to follow up by registering an FIR.

Even in the SC proceedings, it was the police station in-charge Nitin Uttamrao Levaharkar, who filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the state. The court found it surprising that in such a serious issue, no senior officials chose to file an affidavit. It further noted that on August 19, after reserving judgment, the state did not bother to file its written submissions as directed by the court.

The high court had disbelieved the minor victim’s claim and noted that nothing could be done as the charge sheet in the Gaikwad case had been filed by the police. The court set aside the HC decision, holding its decision incorrect in the light of Section 154 CrPC.