Read Time: 01 hours
1. [By Poll of LS Seat Pune] The Bombay High Court on Monday remarked that the Election Commission of India's stand, stating that it could not hold by-poll elections for the Lok Sabha seat because the commission is busy with other elections and preparatory activities for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, was 'hardly tenable.' The division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata was heairing a petition filed by a Pune resident seeking to direct the election commission to hold the by-poll elections, as six months had already lapsed for the election commission to fill the vacancy as prescribed under the law. The division bench of the high court remarked that it was understandable if it was physically impossible for the commission to hold elections in places like Manipur. “We understand if they (Election Commission) say they cannot hold elections in a place like Manipur where there is physical unrest,” Justice Patel said. The remarks were made by the bench after Advocate Pradeep Rajagopal, representing the ECI, submitted that it would not be able to hold by-poll elections due to the preparatory activities for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Sughosh Joshi vs ECI.
Click here to read more.
2. [Assaulting Husband With Broom] The Bombay High Court recently quashed a chargesheet against a wife who was accused of assaulting her husband with a broom and biting his hands. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar, heard a petition filed by the woman seeking to quash the chargesheet against her. The FIR was lodged against the woman in April 2022 by the Sion Police Station, booking her for voluntarily causing hurt to her husband. The woman was accused of assaulting her husband with a broom and biting his hands. In response, the husband slapped the woman and went on to file a complaint against her. The offence was registered, and an investigation was conducted by the police, resulting in the filing of a chargesheet. The high court was informed that the woman's husband had passed away on 30th April 2022.
Bench: Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
3. [Air Pollution] The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to conduct a joint inspection at seven public project sites in the city of Mumbai to check whether pollution control norms and regulations are being followed or not. The seven major public projects include: Road concretization in Bandra, Madhupark road, Bullet Train Site, Versova Bandra sea link, Mumbai Metro, Mumbai Trans Harbour Link and Mumbai Coastal Road. The high court was hearing a suo moto PIL registered by the high court given the deteriorating Air Quality Index (AQI) in the city of Mumbai. The high court, on the previous hearing, had issued directions to the authorities to reduce the pollution and also restricted the timing for bursting fire crackers during Diwali. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice GS Kulkarni said that legal action should also be initiated against those flaunting norms.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice GS Kulkarni.
Case title: High Court on its own motion.
4. [House Arrest] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the period of house arrest should be taken into consideration while computing the total period of custody. “Mr. Venegavkar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-ED submitted that, the period of house arrest cannot be taken into consideration for computing the total period of custody of the Petitioner and it needs to be excluded. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel, as according to us house arrest is ultimately arrest of person, whereby his liberty to be a free person is ultimately curtailed by operation of law,” the bench observed. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SC Chandak, was hearing a petition wherein the man was arrested on 23rd April 2018 and was in custody for 5 years and 3 months. The petitioner was booked under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which is punishable with imprisonment of 7 years. The petitioner contended that the trial court had not yet framed charges and that the likelihood of completion of the trial in the near future is remote. Therefore, he sought release on bail pending the petition.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SC Chandak.
Case title: Mohammed Farooq Mohamemed vs Deputy Director & Anr.
5. [Rahul Gandhi] The Bombay High Court has granted time to Rajesh Kunte, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) member, to file his reply in the petition filed by Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi challenging the order of the Thane Magistrate Court allowing the annexure of documents that were part of Rahul Gandhi’s writ petition before the high court. The single-judge bench of the high court, Justice RN Ladha, today granted time to Kunte to file his reply by January 05, 2024, and also asked Gandhi to file his rejoinder. The bench will now hear the petition on January 10, 2024. The RSS worker had lodged a defamation complaint against Gandhi, alleging that he had stated in a speech that the RSS was accountable for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi has approached the high court against the order of the Thane court allowing the RSS worker to exhibit documents that were a part of Gandhi's petition in 2014. In 2021, the RSS worker challenged the trial court's decision rejecting his plea to annex specific documents from Gandhi's 2014 petition.
Bench: Justice RN Laddha.
Case title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
6. [Freedom of Speech] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that transgression of freedom of speech beyond reasonableness can lead to disastrous consequences. "Similarly, clause 24(1) clearly covers the act of Respondent workman for having posted the two Facebook posts. Freedom of speech and expression cannot be allowed to be transgressed beyond reasonableness. If that is allowed, it could lead to disastrous consequences. In a given case, one cannot and should not wait for the consequences to occur. Such acts itself are required to be nipped in the bud," the court said. The single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice Milind Jadhav, was hearing an appeal filed by a company against the order of the Labour Court that held that the chargesheet against the workman was illegal. The chargesheet was filed against the workman for uploading two Facebook posts against the company that were allegedly violent. The Pune-based company filed an appeal before the high court against the order of the labour court. In the two posts, the workman, who was the office bearer of the trade union, had stated that the management was not paying heed towards the state of workman and that if the workman takes the actions of the management personally, they would teach a lesson to the management.
Bench: Justice Milind Jadhav.
Case title: Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nirajkumar Prabhakarrao Kadu.
7. [E-Mail To Judge On Personal ID] The division bench headed by Justice Gautam S Patel of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a case after receiving an email on his personal ID stating that the case was not being heard by the court. Advocate Kanchan Pamnani, who was appearing for the petitioner, informed the bench that she was not aware of the email and, after apologizing, requested Justice Patel to hear the case. However, Justice Patel responded and said that parties cannot send personal emails to judges. "Personal emails to judges? You mail us and matter gets compromised. Matter may be pending for how much ever time but you cannot send personal emails to judges. I am never going to touch this matter. Not with a ten foot pole," Justice Patel said.
8. [Pune LS Seat By Poll] The Bombay High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to hold the by-poll election for the Pune Lok Sabha Constituency, observing that citizens cannot go unrepresented as it would be unconstitutional. "In any parliamentary democracy, governance is done by elected representatives who are the voices of people. If the representative is no more, another must be put in place. People cannot go unrepresented. That is wholly unconstitutional and is a fundamental anathema to our constitutional structure," the court said. A division bench of Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Kamal Khata stated that the Election Commission of India's stand to not hold elections, citing busyness with other polls and preparatory activities for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, was "bizarre and wholly unreasonable." The high court was hearing a petition filed by a Pune resident seeking to direct the election commission to hold the by-poll elections, as six months had already lapsed for the election commission to fill the vacancy as prescribed under the law. The post went vacant after the death of the Member of Parliament (MP) Girish Bapat on March 29, this year.
9. [Kirit Somaiya vs Thackeray] On Wednesday, the Bombay High Court while hearing the BJP Leader Kirit Somaiya's PIL against Uddhav Thackeray stated that petitions for highlighting irregularities cannot be entertained by the court. “A petition for academic purposes without there being a cause cannot be entertained. If somebody commits an act then the consequences are he should be prosecuted. Merely, for highlighting irregularities petition cannot be entertained,” the court said. The division bench of the high court, led by Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by BJP Leader Kirit Somaiya. The PIL alleged that former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Uddhav Thackeray, his family, and UBT MLA Ravindra Waikar had constructed bungalows in a forest area in Alibaug in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone. Somaiya claimed that Thackeray and his family colluded with Gram Panchayat authorities, forged revenue records, and built the bungalow in the forest area.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Dr Kirit Jayantilal Somaiya vs Uddhav Thackeray & Ors.
10. [Rajasthan Royals] The Bombay High Court has upheld the reduction of the penalty imposed on the Indian Premier League cricket franchise Rajasthan Royals from Rs. 98 Crores to Rs. 15 Crores for the violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale was hearing an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the tribunal that reduced the penalty imposed by the agency on the owners of the Rajasthan Royals. “The findings are far from being perverse. Thus, no question of law arises in the case. The question raised by Appellant relating to justification of the reduction of penalty imposed by the Special Director is purely based on facts and no question of law even remotely, arises from the same,” the order stated. In 2013, the Enforcement Directorate imposed a penalty of Rs. 98.35 crore on the team for the alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. The IPL team filed an appeal against the agency's order before the tribunal, arguing that the penalty imposed was unreasonable.
Bench: Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale.
Case title: Special Director vs Jaipur IPL Cricket.
11. [Charges Unframed For 5 Years] The Bombay High Court has sought an explanation from the District Judge of Thane and the District Judge of Belapur regarding why charges have not been framed against an individual, despite five years having passed since his arrest. A single-judge bench of the high court presided over by Justice Bharathi Dangre, heard an application filed by Javed Likayat Ansari, who was charged with murder by the police. In July 2022, the bench expressed its disinclination to hear the matter, leading to its withdrawal. In the same year, the trial had not progressed due to the pandemic. However, the high court had directed the trial court to complete the trial within a year. The bench was surprised to learn that 1.5 years had passed since the high court's order, yet the charges had not been framed. In its order, the high court observed that the judicial system seemed to have overlooked the applicant, as he had not been produced before the court.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre.
Case title: Jahid alias Javed Liyakat Ansari vs State of Maharashtra.
12. [Undertrial prisoners] The Bombay High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of the non-production of under-trial prisoners before various courts and the utilization of funds for installing video conferencing facilities across courts to facilitate the appearance of under-trial prisoners. The single-judge bench of the high court presided over by Justice Bharathi Dangre was hearing a bail application from Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav, represented by Advocate Vinod Kashid. The applicant claimed that his bail application had been adjourned 23 times by the trial court because he was not produced before the court either physically or virtually. During the previous hearing, the high court observed that physically producing undertrial prisoners was a cumbersome process. The authorities were advised to use video conferencing for presenting undertrial prisoners instead. On December 13, the Additional Public Prosecutor SR Agarkar informed the bench that the state government had passed a resolution on November 28, 2023, allocating a sum of Rs. 5,33,16,753 for the installation of the Video Conferencing facility. This budget includes the purchase of necessary infrastructure such as cameras, amplifiers, audio interface, cables, etc., along with their installation. In its order, the high court stated that the Government Resolution should be brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor and the Advocate General to ensure that the funds are utilized by March 31, 2024. During the hearing, the amicus curiae, Satyavrat Joshi, after visiting Thane Jail, expressed satisfaction with the facilities available in the jail for the production of accused persons in different courts. He informed the bench that he would submit the report by December 20.
Case title: Tribhuvansingh Raghunath Yadav vs State of Maharashtra.
13. [Concurrent Sentence] The Bombay High Court has directed the release of a convict who was subjected to separate imprisonment in two different cases due to failure to pay the imposed fine amount by the court. The division bench of the high court in Aurangabad, consisting of Justice RG Achavat and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh, heard a petition filed by a man convicted in two separate cases by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Dhule. The CJM had convicted the petitioner in a 2013 case, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 5000. Additionally, the CJM directed that in case of failure to pay the fine amount, the petitioner should undergo three months of simple imprisonment. A similar judgment was passed against the petitioner in a 2012 case filed against him. The counsel for the petitioner argued that although the CJM decided the two cases mentioned above, Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C. was not invoked. Consequently, the CJM failed to direct that the sentences in these cases should run concurrently. He submitted that the petitioner has already undergone more than three years of rigorous imprisonment, and he is now directed to undergo three months of simple imprisonment in each case for non-payment of the fine.
Bench: Justice RG Achavat and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh.
Case title: Guru Bhalerao vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Please Login or Register
