The Bombay High Court has recently turned its attention to the controversial Badlapur encounter case, expressing deep concern over the recent ruling of a Thane Sessions Court. The court had temporarily halted the findings of a Magistrate Enquiry, which suggested serious allegations against police officers involved in what is being referred to as a "fake encounter" resulting in the death of Akshay Shinde.
During proceedings last Thursday, Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale of the Bombay High Court articulated their astonishment at the Sessions Court's decision to stay the Magistrate's findings. The enquiry had previously stated there was merit to claims made by Shinde's parents, asserting the use of force by police was unjustified and the killing appeared staged. The Division Bench questioned the propriety of the stay order, particularly as the matter was already under the High Court's jurisdiction.
"We are shocked. How can the Sessions Judge pass such an order?" Justice Mohite-Dere exclaimed, addressing the court’s concerns over procedural integrity. The judge emphasized it was inappropriate for the Sessions Court to intervene since the issue was already being reviewed by the High Court. She queried, "Is this judicial propriety? How is such an order tenable when the matter is pending before us?"
A pivotal aspect of the discussion involved Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar, who confirmed there had been opposition to the police officers’ appeal at the Sessions Court. Even so, the High Court expressed disbelief over the adequacy of the response, with Justice Mohite-Dere questioning whether the Sessions Court truly had the jurisdiction to entertain such petitions when the matter is sub judice.
"Does this not overreach the fact?" she pressed. "We do not see any substantial objection raised by the State against the maintainability of the petition itself. Has the judge overstepped his jurisdiction?"
To aid with the proceedings, Justice Mohite-Dere appointed Senior Advocate Manjula Rao as Amicus Curiae, tasked with providing independent advice to the court. This development arose after Shinde’s father expressed hesitance to pursue the case any longer, citing overall delays and the pursuit of justice as burdensome.
Justice Mohite-Dere called upon Rao, stating, "Madam Rao, we seek your assistance in this matter. The Magistrate Enquiry has submitted its findings, and you will need to advise us on whether the State can register an FIR against the five police officers based on this report." The court referenced the State’s position, which included claims of parallel investigations being conducted by other bodies. It sought clarity on whether these inquiries would prevent the filing of charges against the police.
Proceedings were adjourned until March 5, allowing Rao time to review case documents and present her conclusions. The court has also noted the precarious position of the deceased's family; during earlier hearings, they disclosed the severe financial hardship they faced following Shinde’s death.
On December 19, 2024, the parents informed the court they were rendered destitute and forced to live on the streets due to their inability to find work after their son’s death. Their harrowing circumstance illustrated the human toll of the case, eliciting sympathy and drawing attention to the urgent need for justice.
From the outset, the Badlapur case has raised questions about police accountability, use of excessive force, and the legal obligations of courts to provide justice, cautions echoed by the High Court’s recent remarks.
The significance of the upcoming March hearing cannot be understated; it will shape the next steps for pursuing justice not only for Shinde's family but also for broader concerns about state practices and the rule of law.
With both public and judicial scrutiny intensifying, the court’s decision could serve as an important precedent for future encounters and their investigations, highlighting the necessity of upholding judicial integrity.