Read Time: 24 minutes
1. [Disclosing Identity of Rape Victim] The high court imposed cost of Rs 1000 on an accused for disclosing the name of the rape victim i.e., the original informant while supplying the documents to the high court.“In view of the decision of this Court in Sajjan s/o Hirchand Gusinge Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, [Criminal Appeal No.869 of 2022 decided on 08.02.2023], this Court has observed that the photographs along with the charge-sheet should also be presented by the investigating officer in sealed envelope and even when it comes to production of any such document, utmost care should be taken that the identity of the victim is not disclosed in view of Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Those directions have not been followed and, therefore, we propose to impose cost,” the bench noted.
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice YG Khobragade
Cause Title: Rijwan s/o Karim Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra & Ors
Click here to read more
2. [IT Rules Amendment] During the hearing in the plea filed by comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the amended IT Rules establishing the Fact Checking Unit, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai expressed his concerns before a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale about the new fact-checking unit. He stated that the people of the country are already scared. “The people of this country today are already sacred which they should not be in a democracy and the rule of law. Under 19(1)(a) the initial burden is a light burden. I have to just prima facie show that the rule does not come under reasonable restrictions” Seervai said.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale
Cause Title: Kunal Kamra vs UOI
3. [Reasons are Heart & Soul of Judgments] The high court remitted back a case to the magistrate who had not given proper reasons while passing the judgment. Court said that the reasons of the judgment are its soul and heart. “It is a rule of writing judgment that the evidence as a whole available on the record shall be appreciated, and on the basis of the evidence, the Judge writing a judgment has to record the conclusions with reasons. The reasons are rational explanations for the conclusion. It is a process by which one reaches a conclusion. The reasons are the soul and heart of the judgment. The Judge writing a judgment has to examine the evidence minutely. The judgment should be confined to the facts of the case and the issues involved,” the bench observed.
Bench: Justice SG Mehare
Cause title: Baki Abdulgani Patel vs State of Maharashtra & Ors
4. [Eknath Shinde & Devendra Fadnavis] A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking action against Chief Minister of Maharashtra Eknath Shinde, and Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for death of 14 people who died due to sunstroke during an event wherein 'Maharashtra Bhushan' was being awarded to Dattatreya Narayan Dharmadhikari. The PIL filed by one Shaila Kanthe, a practicing lawyer, through Advocate Nitin Satpute states that other than the 14 deceased people, 1500 more people were admitted to 100 different hospitals. The plea states that the government had sanctioned Rs. 14 Crore for the event however there was no arrangement of water for the people. “Respondent No. 1 & 2 has sanction 14 crore for this event, and contract given to their favorite agency. All the money paid to them was of public money, the taxes paid by the citizens. Afte paying 14 crore for this event, there was no any water available for the people, police were carrying water jar for people,” the plea reads.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne
Cause title: Shaila Jitendra Kanthe vs Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra
5. [LLB Exams of 2006 Mumbai Train Blast Convict] The high court allowed Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari, a life convict of the 2006 Mumbai Train bomb blast to take his LLB exams. “Considering the fact that on the last occasion, conditional permission was granted to the Applicant and there has been no complaint of any breach of those conditions having been committed by the Applicant, we find appropriate to allow this application on similar terms as earlier imposed. Accordingly, the permission is granted to the Applicant to appear at all four papers, Sem-II of third year LLB on 25.04.2023, 27.04.2023, 02.05.2023 & 04.05.2023 at Siddharth College of Law, Anand Bhavan, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai,” the court directed.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice MM Sathaye
Cause Title: Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari vs State of Maharashtra
6. [Arvind Kejriwal] The Goa Police withdrew the summons issued to the Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal after the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court came down heavily on the Goa police. Arvind Kejriwal was issued summons by the Perenem Police Station of Goa for defacing public property. The Goa police had asked Kejriwal to be present before it for questioning on the 27th of April. The police officials were investigating an FIR registered against the AAP leader under the Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property Act. Accordingly, Kejriwal was served notice by the police under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Bench: Justice MS Sonak and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes
Cause Title: Arvind Kejriwal vs State, Through Official Incharge Pernem Police Station
7. [Action Against Guards Scaring Dogs With Sticks] The high court asked the residential society of Mumbai to address complaints of security guards scaring away animals with sticks. The high court also asked members of the housing society to make provisions for animals to drink water during the summer season. “We direct the Society to entertain complaints from the petitioner and other members of the society in this regard, so that appropriate action can be taken against such Security Guards who are indulging in such actions. This would be necessary as we are of the clear opinion that such coercive methods would certainly amount to an act of cruelty to the animals,” the bench noted.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni And Justice RN Laddha
Cause title: Paromita Puthran vs MCGM
8. [Fact Check Unit Not To Be Notified Till 5th July] The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on Thursday last week informed the Bombay High Court that the newly amended IT Rules establishing a fact check unit will not be notified till July 5, 2023. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Darius Kambatta submitted that whether the rule is operative or inoperative, the chilling effect is already there and that there is still a fear of saying anything. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh told the high court that he has instructions that the rules will not be notified till July 5. "I have instructions that the rule will not be notified till July 5 because Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will appear," said ASG Singh.
9. [Modern Technology For Senior Citizen, Women & Children] The high court disposed of a writ petition while directing that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai shall endeavor to make modern technology available to senior citizens, women, and children. “We are also of the opinion that considering the large number of commuters using this segment, the MCGM shall make an endeavour to make available all modern facilities in lighting technology in installing the sky-walks. This would cater to the safety of commuters during evening and night hours more particularly, keeping in mind the use of such facility by senior citizens, women and children. We may reiterate that the personal safety of the commuters who use the sky-walk, pavements, is paramount. Also such aspects are required to be considered not only by the MCGM, but even by the State Government and the other concerned authorities,” the bench observed.
Cause title: K. P. Purushothaman Nair vs MCGM
10. [Bhima Koregoan: Varavara Rao] The high court while hearing a plea filed by Bhima Koregoan accused P Varavara Rao questioned if it was a fact that Rao would be getting free surgery if he is allowed to travel to Hyderabad. “He files an application stating he will get free surgery at Hyderabad. Whether this is factually correct or not? If it is factually not correct, then the complexion of the matter changes. You take instructions because that is the crux of this matter,” Justice Borkar said.
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar
Case title: Dr. P Varavara Rao vs National Investigating Agency
11. [Retrospective Name Change For Transgender] The high court directed the Maharashtra Government to ask all the educational institutions to enable retrospective change in gender for transgender people. The court observed that such a denial is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. “To our mind, it is in and of itself nothing short of a denial of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21. What has to be acknowledged is a movement forward in point of time and in life, that is to say, what is required to be provided to the Petitioner from a particular point onwards without having to go back in time,” the bench noted.
Cause Title: X vs The Dean & Anr
12. [Ice Cream Festival At R-City Mall] The high court recently allowed an ice cream festival in R-City Mall at Ghatkopar while observing that citizens visit malls not only for shopping but also for leisure food area, play area, amusement/cinema. “It is thus clear that recreational activities would include amusement or enjoyment-related leisure activities. It needs no elaboration that citizens visit malls not only for the purpose of shopping but also, for leisure or for amusement, which they would derive not only from shopping activities but also, from visiting different specialized areas created in such malls like the food area, play area, amusement/cinema, etc,” the bench observed.
Cause title: R Mall Developers Pvt Ltd & Anr vs MCGM & Ors.
13. [Consent of Spouse Not Required To Donate Organs] The high court recently allowed a kidney transplant by a person named Dinesh to his brother-in-law while observing that consent of a spouse is not required for donating organs.“The Act makes no provisions for a spouse withholding consent even unreasonably or for extraneous reasons. Dinesh has already filed an Affidavit and made a comprehensive statement that his estranged spouse and unmarried daughter have been provided for. Before us he reiterates that, and we have no reason to disbelieve him. We cannot understand why the insistence on a spousal consent should literally come at the cost of Prasanna’s life. It is not as if Prasanna is demanding the donation from Dinesh or that Dinesh is being pressured into making that organ donation. The essence of the Act in such cases is for a voluntary donation of an organ,” the court observed.
Cause Title: Prasanna Laxmikant Joshi & Anr vs State of Maharashtra Ors
Please Login or Register
