उच्चतम न्यायालय (Supreme Court) ने सोहराबुद्दीन शेख (Sohrabuddin Shaikh) एनकाउंटर मामले में अमित शाह के उन्मोचन आदेश (discharge order) की समीक्षा करने से इनकार कर दिया, लेकिन 22 आरोपियों की दोषमुक्ति (acquittal) के खिलाफ दायर याचिका पर सीबीआई (CBI) को नोटिस जारी किया है।
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India issued notice on September 28, 2026, on an appeal challenging the acquittal of all 22 accused, including 21 police personnel, in the 2005 extrajudicial killing case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kauser Bi, and associate Tulsiram Prajapati.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana sought responses from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the acquitted individuals regarding whether the trial was fair and just. However, the apex court explicitly clarified that it would not permit any attempt to re-examine or reopen the 2014 discharge order passed in favor of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, observing that his discharge had achieved finality.
Finality on Clean Chit to Union Home Minister
During the hearing, the Bench addressed the preliminary scope of the petition filed by Rubabuddin Shaikh, the brother of Sohrabuddin Shaikh. Justice Bagchi highlighted that the court would not entertain arguments assailing Paragraph 43 of the Bombay High Court ruling, which had dismissed earlier petitions seeking to challenge Shah’s discharge.
Chief Justice Surya Kant concurred, reiterating that the discharge order passed by the trial court in December 2014—and subsequently upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court—remains closed to further judicial review. The Court stressed that its current inquiry is strictly limited to evaluating whether the trial court and the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the 22 individuals who were formally put on trial.
Concern Over Wholesale Hostility of Witnesses
The central point of concern raised by the Supreme Court revolved around the integrity of the evidentiary process during the trial. Out of 210 prosecution witnesses examined during the proceedings, 92 witnesses turned hostile, systematically altering or retracting their initial statements given to investigating agencies.
Justice Bagchi observed that when 92 witnesses turn hostile in a single trial, it raises serious systemic questions regarding whether the prosecution was conducted fairly or if witnesses were subjected to external pressure. The Bench indicated that it intends to scrutinize select witness depositions to independently satisfy itself that the trial met the standard of a fair judicial procedure. To facilitate this review, the Court instructed legal counsel appearing for both sides to compile and submit key witness testimonies relied upon in their submissions.
Background and Procedural History
The matter originates from events in November 2005, when Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Kauser Bi, and Tulsiram Prajapati were intercepted by police personnel while traveling on a bus from Hyderabad to Sangli. According to the investigation, Shaikh and Kauser Bi were detained at a farmhouse near Ahmedabad. Shaikh was killed in an alleged staged encounter on November 26, 2005, while Kauser Bi was murdered shortly thereafter and her remains secretly disposed of. Prajapati, an eyewitness to the abduction, was separately eliminated in another encounter near the Gujarat-Rajasthan border in December 2006.
The Supreme Court initially handed over the investigation to the CBI in 2010 and subsequently transferred the trial from Gujarat to Mumbai in September 2012 to ensure an impartial environment.
In December 2018, Special CBI Judge S.J. Sharma acquitted all 22 accused, observing that while the court had sympathy for the victims' families, the prosecution failed to establish a cogent chain of circumstantial evidence or prove a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial judge noted that criminal convictions cannot be sustained on moral suspicion in the absence of solid proof.
High Court Verdict and Present Appeal
Following the 2018 acquittal, Shaikh's brothers, Rubabuddin and Nayabuddin Shaikh, approached the Bombay High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The CBI chose not to appeal the trial court's ruling, maintaining that it accepted the trial court's verdict.
On May 7, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the acquittals. The High Court held that the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence plagued by broken links, failing to establish either the abduction or a police-politician nexus. Furthermore, the High Court held that the turning hostile of witnesses did not, by itself, justify an inference that the trial was compromised.
Challenging the High Court's dismissal, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing Rubabuddin Shaikh, submitted before the Supreme Court that three lives were taken in cold blood and that witness hostility occurred because ordinary citizens were pitted against state police machinery. Counsel representing the acquitted respondents contended that concurrent factual findings by two lower courts should not be disturbed without proof of perversity.
The Supreme Court has agreed to tag a related appeal filed by Nayabuddin Shaikh and directed the parties to assist the Bench with complete witness records during subsequent hearings.
Description: The Supreme Court of India issued notice on an appeal by Rubabuddin Shaikh challenging the acquittal of 22 persons, including 21 police officers, in the 2005 Sohrabuddin Shaikh extrajudicial killing case. A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, sought responses from the Central Bureau of Investigation and the acquitted individuals.
The Court expressed grave concern that 92 out of 210 prosecution witnesses turned hostile, noting that wholesale witness hostility raises serious questions regarding whether a fair trial took place. The Bench agreed to examine key witness depositions to assess judicial fairness. However, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled out reopening or re-examining the 2014 discharge of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, observing that his discharge order has attained finality.