LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif vs The State of Maharashtra and Others

Not available · 2025 INSC 1100Decided 11 Sept 2025
Not available
Justice Sanjay Kumar · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

During communal riots that broke out in Akola City, Maharashtra in May 2023 following a social media post, the appellant, a minor at the time, witnessed four unknown assailants attacking a man with a sword and iron pipe on a bridge, and was himself assaulted when he intervened. He alleged that despite informing the police and being treated for his own injuries at a hospital, the police failed to register his complaint or investigate, and he approached the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) by way of a writ petition. The High Court, doubting his motives, dismissed his petition, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that police officers are duty-bound to be prompt, objective and free of bias, religious or otherwise, in discharging their duties, and found that the Akola police had failed to follow up on the medico-legal case record even though they had been informed of the appellant's hospitalisation within hours of the incident. Given the seriousness of the allegations (a possible communally motivated murder witnessed by the appellant, who claimed he could identify an assailant) the Court held that a proper investigation was essential and could not be brushed aside merely because the High Court doubted the appellant's bona fides. The Court allowed the appeal and directed the Maharashtra Home Ministry to constitute a special investigation team of senior officers from both religious communities to register an FIR and investigate the appellant's allegations, and to consider disciplinary action against erring police officials, with a report due to the Court within three months.

Lesson Learnt

Police cannot sit on a citizen's complaint of assault or refuse to register an FIR simply because they are skeptical of the complainant. Courts can and will step in to direct fresh, impartial investigation, including by a specially constituted team, when there are credible signs that police failed in their basic duty.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case