The Maharashtra government has approached the Supreme Court (SC) seeking a review of its order to form a special investigation team (SIT) for Akola riot cases. The government argues that the SC's direction to form a SIT comprising senior police officials from both Hindu and Muslim communities to probe two Akola riot-related offenses—a murder and an assault—is against the secular policies of the state.

The case originates from the Akola riots that occurred in May 2023, sparked by a social media post on the Prophet. During the riots, one Mohd Afzal Mohd Sharif claimed to have witnessed the murder of a Hindu auto-rickshaw driver. Sharif alleged the driver was killed by assailants who mistook him for a Muslim, as he was driving an auto-rickshaw owned by a Muslim and bearing a sticker with the name 'Garib Nawaz'. Sharif further claimed that he was also assaulted by the assailants. He alleged that the police did not promptly register a First Information Report (FIR) or take action on his complaint.

Sharif then petitioned the Bombay High Court, but the court declined to entertain his petition after police stated that they had investigated the crime and filed a charge sheet. Subsequently, Sharif moved to the Supreme Court.

In September 2025, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kumar directed the Maharashtra Home Secretary to form an SIT comprising senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to investigate the allegations made by Sharif and register an FIR regarding the assault on him. The court also instructed the state to take disciplinary action against the police officers for negligence in duty. The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Maharashtra Police for not properly investigating Sharif's allegations and stressed that officers must act without personal or religious bias. The court observed that police officers, when in uniform, are required to shed their personal predilections and biases, be they religious, racial, or casteist. They must be true to their duty with absolute integrity, which the court found lacking in this case.

The Maharashtra government has stated it will implement the SC's order and set up the SIT for a fresh probe into the incident. However, the government has expressed strong reservations, claiming that dividing the uniformed force along religious lines is inconsistent with the secular character of India and the foundational principles governing public institutions. The government argues that once an officer is in the police force, they are bound by duties of neutrality, impartiality, and lawful action, and that a police officer has no religion or caste.

The Supreme Court also directed that measures be initiated to instruct and sensitize the police department's rank and file on what the law requires of them in discharging their duties. The investigation report of the SIT is to be placed before the court within three months.