LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/shakeel-ahmed-vs-union-of-india-ors-20221104/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Constitutional · Reportable judgment

Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
4 November 2022
Case No.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 182 of 2001
Result
Disposed
Bench
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath
Citation
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 705 : 2022 INSC 1162
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 8 S.C.R. 705 : 2022 INSC 1162
Headnote

Directions – Direction issued to the State Government to implement the recommendations – Government of Maharashtra in the aftermath of communal riots and bomb blasts that occurred in Mumbai between December 1992 and March 1993 constituted a Commission – The Commission submitted its report in February 1998, which contained recommendations on various issues, including the causes of the riots, inadequate measures taken by the police, failure to register crimes, delay in the disposal of criminal cases, political interference in the functioning of the police machinery, and lack of physical fitness among police personnel – Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court u/Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the respondents to accept and act on the findings and recommendations of the Commission – Petitioner alleged that many of the recommendations have not been implemented – Held: The Court formed a committee to monitor implementation of the judgment – The State government was ordered to provide a report on missing persons, compensate legal heirs, pay interest on compensation, and provide details of pending cases – The Government was given nine months to complete the exercise – State directed to implement recommendations made on the issue of police reforms and constitute a special cell to trace missing accused persons.

Disposing of the writ petition, the Court

HELD:1. Following order was passed in disposing the petition 1. There shall be a Committee headed by the Member Secretary of MSLSA to monitor the implementation of the directions issued by this Judgment. The State Government shall appoint a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Collector, and a Police Officer, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, who shall be the other two members of the Committee;

Read the full headnote (11 more paragraphs)

2. The State Government shall submit to the Committee a report containing details of 168 missing persons including their names and addresses. The State Government will also place material regarding efforts made to trace family members of 108 missing persons who have been deprived of compensation in terms of the second Government Resolution. The State Government shall make all possible efforts to trace the legal heirs/family members of the missing persons. The Committee shall monitor this exercise. The Committee shall assist the legal representatives of the missing persons to complete the procedural formalities;

3. The State Government shall also submit to the Committee the record relating to compensation paid in terms of the Annexure to the First Government Resolution as well as in terms of the second Government Resolution by incorporating the specific dates on which the compensation was actually paid to the persons entitled to it. The State Government shall also provide a list of victims who have not been paid compensation in terms of both the Government Resolutions;

4. The State Government shall pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the legal heirs of the missing persons traced out hereafter, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 22nd January 1999 i.e. from the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the second Government Resolution, till actual payment;

5. The Committee consisting of the Secretary of MSLSA and the other two Government Officers appointed under this order, shall monitor the efforts of the State Government to trace other victims who were entitled to compensation in terms of the Annexure to the first Government Resolution but compensation was not paid to them. The victims identified hereafter shall also be paid the compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 8th January 1994 i.e. from the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the First Government Resolution, till actual payment;

6. To those who were paid compensation after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the applicable Government Resolution, the State Government shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of the compensation payable from the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the applicable Government Resolution till the date of payment. This direction will apply to those who have received compensation before the date of this Judgment. The Committee, after examining the record, shall furnish to the State Government the details of the victims who are entitled to receive interest as above;

7. The State Government shall comply with the requirement of submitting necessary details as aforesaid to the Committee within a period of two months from today. Appointment of the two officers, as directed above, shall be made within a period of one month from today. Both the Government Officers shall coordinate with concerned Departments and ensure that necessary details, as directed by the Committee, are furnished to the Committee within the specified time of two months;

8. The entire exercise of payment of compensation and/or interest shall be completed by the State Government within a period of nine months from today. The State Government shall report compliance made from time to time to the Committee. A detailed report containing details of the compliance of the directions as aforesaid shall be filed by the Secretary of MSLSA with this Court within a period of ten months from today;

9. The Committee shall seek necessary guidance from the Executive Chairperson of MSLSA for implementation of the directions issued by this order. The Committee shall be entitled to seek the assistance of Para Legal volunteers;

10. The State Government shall provide details of the only pending riot related criminal case before the Sessions Court at Mumbai to the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court who shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Court that the case needs to be disposed of at the earliest;

11. The State Government shall provide details of 97 cases on dormant files to the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court within one month from today. On receipt of the details, the High Court on the Administrative side shall issue necessary communication to the concerned Courts in which the cases are pending to take necessary steps to trace the accused. The State Government shall immediately constitute a Special Cell to trace the absconding /missing accused in these cases and to assist the concerned Courts so that the Trial can proceed against them; and

12. The State Government shall expeditiously implement all the recommendations made by the Commission on the issue of reforms in the police force which were accepted by it. [Para 28][725-D-H; 726-A-H; 727-A-G]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The city of Mumbai had a torrid time from 6th December 1992 till 12th March 1993. Mumbai witnessed perhaps the worst mob frenzy, violence, communal tension and riots from 6th December 1992 to 10th December 1992 and from 6th January 1993 to 20th January 1993. There were many incidents of arson and violence resulting in a large-scale loss of lives and damage to properties. The Police resorted to firing at many places. Ultimately, Army was called to aid the civil administration. Thereafter, the situation was gradual
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →