Systemic Stonewalling

The Supreme Court of India was compelled to do what Maharashtra’s government ought to have, but has not done so far. The Apex Court has directed the Maharashtra Director General of Police (DGP) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged custodial killing of 23-year-old Akshay Shinde. Shinde, the prime accused in the sexual assault of two kindergarten girls in Badlapur, later died in mysterious circumstances, believed to be killed in a police encounter last September. The apex court's intervention came only after the Bombay High Court uncovered glaring inconsistencies in the official account and a disturbing reluctance by the state to even file an FIR.

That such a basic demand for an independent investigation had to climb the judicial ladder speaks volumes about the rot in Maharashtra’s policing and politics. The state had appealed the High Court’s earlier directive to appoint an SIT under the supervision of a named officer, arguing instead that the DGP should have the prerogative.

The answer lies in who gets to pick the investigators. The court ultimately let the DGP select the SIT members, giving the state what it wanted but exposing its true priority: control over the process. The Mahayuti coalition government with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who is also Home Minister, has shown a consistent pattern of setting up SITs that appear to act, but achieve nothing.

Since 2022, over 20 SITs have been formed under Fadnavis’s tenure. Not one has delivered anything of substance. They are a bureaucratic performance dressed up as justice.

The facts around Shinde’s death suggest that vigilance is sorely needed. Police claim he snatched a revolver and fired at officers before being killed in ‘retaliatory firing.’ But a magisterial inquiry and forensic evidence have raised serious doubts. The High Court found the official narrative suspicious and CID’s refusal to file an FIR unacceptable. Shinde’s parents, initially willing to pursue justice, have since expressed reluctance which speaks either of intimidation or exhaustion.

The backdrop to this is even more sordid. Shinde was at the centre of a scandal that touched not only him but also the management of the school where the abuse took place. The initial police response was sluggish, if not actively obstructive, until public protests forced the authorities to act. When the case began to implicate more than just a lone suspect, the most explosive witness conveniently died. That the government then balked at an independent SIT only deepens suspicions.

The eagerness of the Fadnavis-led government to control the terms of investigation, rather than enable transparency, belies its claims of uprightness. Whether the SIT walks through it, or quietly tiptoes around uncomfortable truths will depend not just on who serves on it but whether anyone has the courage to stand up to the system. It is not a good sign for democracy when the Supreme Court must parent a government that seemingly fears the truth.