Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up- News Updates [12- 17 June, 2023]

Read Time: 17 minutes

1. [Gautam Navlakha] The Bombay High Court issued notice to the National Investigation Agency and sought its reply in the bail appeal filed by the Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha. Court asked the counsel for both parties to point out the orders in which all the correct facts are recorded because there were multiple orders passed in the case. The appeal was filed against the order passed by Special Judge Rajesh Katariya who had observed that Navlakha was an active member of the CPI (Maoist)- a banned terrorist organization and carried out activities in furtherance of the object of the organization and underwent weapon training with other accused

Bench: Justice AS Gadkari & Justice SG Dige

Cause Title: Gautam Navlakha vs NIA

Click here to read more

2. ['Modi Thief' Remark] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Sarang Kotwal adjourned the hearing in the plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for quashing summons issued to him in a complaint against him for his remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018. The court adjourned the hearing in the plea till August 2 and continued the interim relief granted to Gandhi for not appearing before the magistrate court after issuing of the summons to him. The present criminal proceedings were initiated against Gandhi in August 2019 by the metropolitan magistrate when a BJP leader filed a complaint against Gandhi stating that his remark against PM Modi was a direct allegation against the BJP members and Indian citizens who are connected to Modi.

Bench: Justice Sarang Kotwal

Cause Title: Rahul Gandhi vs Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal

Click here to read more

3. [Nirav Modi]  A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse while hearing a plea filed by Punjab National Bank and Enforcement Directorate for claim over the property of fugitive economic offender Nirav Modi remarked that no steps were being taken by the PNB Bank when such huge sum of public money was involved. The remarks were made while the high court was hearing an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate and Punjab National Bank against the order of the trial court.  

Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere & Justice Gauri Godse

Cause Title: PNB Bank vs ED

Click here to read more

4. [Transgender Reservation] The Maharashtra Government has informed the Bombay High Court that it is difficult for the State Government to create additional horizontal and vertical reservations for transgender in the education and employment sector. Advocate General Birendra Saraf informed the court that the Central Government had not implemented any guidelines concerning the Supreme Court's judgment of National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India wherein the top court had directed government to make reservations for transgenders. The observations were made by the court while hearing a plea filed by an electrical engineer seeking modification of the advertisement issued by the Maharashtra Transco.

Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V Marne

Cause Title: Vinayak Bhagwan Kashid vs MESTCL

Click here to read more

5. [New High Court Building] The Maharashtra government has requested the Registrar of the Bombay High Court to assign a representative to take early possession of a 30-acre land in the suburbs of Mumbai for the construction of a new high court complex. On May 25, 2023, the state's revenue department had communicated this request to the Bombay High Court. The communication notified the registrar that the revenue department had issued a communication requesting the high court to appoint a representative to take advance possession of 30 acres of land in Bandra East. 

Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V Marne

Cause Title: Ahmad Abdi vs State of Maharashtra 

Click here to read more

6. [Poor Hygine At Fish Market Near Colaba] A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V Marne has directed the State Pollution Control Board, Port Trust of Mumbai, and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to conduct a joint meeting and file a reply in a plea against unhygienic condition caused by the fish hawkers inside and outside the Sassoon Docks at Colaba. The court was hearing a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner alleged that the roads of Colaba starting from the gates of Sassoon Docks right to the Mumbai Port Trust Garden were being used for fish cleaning & chopping exercises, especially prawns pealing carried out in the open areas and even on roads causing a filthy and unhygienic environment. 

Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V Marne

Cause Title: Renu Kapoor & Ors vs UOI & Ors.

Click here to read more 

7. [Animal Sacrifice At Vishalgad Fort] A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale on Thursday sought a reply from the State Government in a plea filed by a Dargah Trust against the ban on animal sacrifice around the Vishalgad Fort in Kolhapur. The petitioner had challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Archeology and Museum which cited a 1998 high court order banning animal sacrifice in the name of god.

Bench: Justice GS Patel & Justice Neela Gokhale

Cause Title: Hajrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb Dargah, Vishalgad vs State of Maharshtra & Ors.

Click here to read more 

8. [Mika Singh & Rakhi Sawant] A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SG Dige recently quashed a First Information Report filed against singer Mika Singh in a molestation case by Rakhi Sawant.  Sawant's lawyer had informed the court that she had consented to quash the FIR. In 2006, Actor Rakhi Sawant filed a molestation case against singer Mika Singh after he allegedly forcibly kissed her at his birthday party, which took place at a restaurant in Mumbai suburbs. Singh was booked for offences under Sections 354 (molestation) and 323 (assault) of the Indian Penal Code.

Bench: Justice AS Gadkari & Justice SG Dige

Cause Title: Amrik Singh Alias Mika Ajmer Singh vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Click here to read more 

9. [Open Manholes]  A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V Marne on Wednesday last week pulled by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for not covering the manholes with protective grills while observing that only 10% of manholes had been covered with protective grills since the year 2018. The bench was hearing a contempt petition filed by one Raju Thakker against the civic authorities for failing to implement the 2018 order of the high court. 

Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V Marne

Cause Title: Ruju Thakker vs BMC

Click here to read more

10. [Ghallughara] The makers of the film "Ghallughara" based on the biopic Jaswant Singh Kalhra, a human rights activist, have approached the Bombay High Court seeking an intervention of high court against the decision of the Central Board of Flim Certification that has asked the makers to make 21 modifications to the film. The plea states that RSVP had approached the CBFC in December 2022 for certification. The movie was initially viewed by the Examining Committee of the CBFC, however, it was thereafter referred to the Revising Committee. The Revising Committee viewed the subject Film twice, on 6th February 2023 and 1st March 2023, despite which it failed to give the petitioner a decision regarding its certification, even two months thereafter.

Cause Title: Unilazer Venture Pvt. Ltd vs CBFC

Click here to read more

11. [Quashing of Detention Order] A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh recently quashed a detention order passed by a district magistrate. "With great power comes great responsibility. Thus, greater the power, greater the responsibility. Whilst authorizing detention, it is the bounden duty of the authority to act responsibly and with circumspection and in accordance with law, since under the detention law, a person is deprived of his/her personal liberty," the court observed. The bench was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Vishal Sharmali who had challenged the detention order passed against him. Simultaneously, the court was also hearing a petition filed by one Sangeeta Rathod who had challenged the detention order passed against her son and husband.

Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere & Justice Sharmilla Deshmukh 

Cause Title: Vishal Kanhaiyalal Shrimali vs Union Territory of Daman & Die & Ors

Click here to read more