Judicial Reckoning

In a system where justice is often delayed and too frequently denied, the Bombay High Court has struck a blow for accountability. The court has ordered the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against five police personnel involved in what it strongly implied was a custodial murder. The deceased, Akshay Shinde, stood accused of sexually assaulting two minor girls in Badlapur – a case that had rocked Maharashtra.

Shinde, while being transported from Taloja prison to a court in Kalyan, was allegedly shot dead in an encounter in September last year. The police claimed he had snatched a weapon and opened fire, an all-too-familiar script in the theatre of extrajudicial justice. But this time, the state’s narrative unravelled. A magistrate’s inquiry into the incident found credible evidence to suggest that the encounter was staged. It concluded that Shinde succumbed to bullet injuries inflicted by officers including a senior inspector, an assistant inspector, two constables and a driver - all from Thane crime branch.

The High Court, in ordering a special investigation team under the joint commissioner of police, minced no words. It chastised the government for its “reluctance” to register an FIR, warning that such obstinacy undermined the rule of law and erodes public faith in the justice system.

Custodial deaths remain a chilling feature of Indian policing, often brushed under the rug with bureaucratic deflections and delayed probes. Between 2017 and 2022, India witnessed over 800 custodial deaths, with barely a fraction resulting in convictions. Maharashtra, despite its modernising rhetoric, has consistently featured among the worst offenders.

That the Fadnavis-led Mahayuti government chose to shield the officers by citing an ongoing CID investigation and a retired judge’s commission exposes the hollow core of its commitment to accountability. The government’s counsel even sought a stay on the court’s order, a move the judges rightly rebuffed. At best, this was bureaucratic inertia. At worst, it was a cynical attempt to stall justice.

The case touches a raw nerve in India’s criminal justice system: can the state police itself? Commissions and CID inquiries rarely bring closure. FIRs, though often misused elsewhere, serve as the bare minimum procedural gatekeeping in cases involving the state’s own excesses. That the court had to intervene to mandate even this first step is an indictment not just of the state police, but of the political executive overseeing it.

Devendra Fadnavis cannot claim ignorance for the incident. As Home Minister in the coalition government, the buck stops with him. His government’s attempted obstruction of judicial orders only strengthens the perception that encounters are not anomalies but acceptable shortcuts. In the process, the state risks losing its moral legitimacy.

The High Court’s intervention offers a glimmer of hope that institutional integrity matters. Justice in this case will hinge not just on the probe, but on whether the state can wean itself off the culture of impunity that has come to define its law enforcement.