Read Time: 24 minutes
1. [POCSO] The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man who was charged with disrobing a 12-year-old girl and taking nude pictures of her. A single-judge bench of the high court, led by Justice PK Chavan was hearing a bail application filed by a man who faced charges of stalking and sexually harassing a minor. It was alleged that on 29th August 2021, the man forcefully took the minor into an under-construction building and showed her obscene pictures. Thereafter, the man tried to remove her clothes and fondled her breast. It was also alleged that the applicant had also taken her nude photographs. Subsequently, an FIR came to be lodged by the victim's father on 3rd September 2023.
Bench: Justice PK Chavan.
Case title: Sunil Vyankatesh Vadar vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Click here to read more.
2. [Visitation Rights To Father] The Bombay High Court (HC) recently allowed a man to meet his two-month-old child on learning that his wife tried to flee the country along with the child by forging documents. A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak, was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the man. The couple got married in India as per the Muslim personal laws. The high court, in its order, noted that on three occasions, it tried to settle the dispute between the couple, taking into consideration the paramount interest of the child. However, the same did not yield any positive result. The bench noted that the child was present before the court on all the hearings.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak.
Case title: ABC vs XYZ.
3. [Sameer Wankhede] The Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed the Bombay High Court on Tuesday that the money laundering case against Sameer Wankhede, Revenue Officer and former NCB Officer, has been transferred to Delhi. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar, was hearing a petition filed by Sameer Wankhede to quash the money laundering case registered by the ED. The ED has accused him of allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs. 25 crores from Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, in return for not framing his son in the Cordelia Drugs Cruise Ship Case. The Enforcement Directorate filed a money laundering case against Wankhede after the CBI filed an FIR against him. Advocate Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the agency, informed the bench that all the papers were sent to Delhi, and the entire cause of action lies there.
Bench: Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Sameer Wankhede vs ED.
4. [Maratha Reservation] The Maharashtra State Government informed the Bombay High Court that the state is taking all necessary steps to amend the rules for issuing Kunbi Certificates to provide reservations to Marathas. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak, was hearing a petition filed by Mumbai lawyer Gunaratan Sadavarte against the ongoing hunger strike by activist Manoj Jarenge Patil. Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the State Government, that it had not even been 20 days since the state issued the notification to amend the rules, highlighting that certain timelines needed to be followed for inviting objections. "The state is always sensitive towards social maintenance. We have endeavoured to balance it. Last time people marched to Bombay and the state took steps including issuing notification for objection to amend the rules. The law has a certain timeline. In situations like this, continuous fast will lead to various situations which will become difficult," Saraf said.
Case title: Gunaratan Sadavarte vs State of Maharashtra.
5. [Surrogacy] The Bombay High Court last week allowed two couples to avail surrogacy through donor eggs, which is prohibited under the amended surrogacy rules. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla, was hearing a petition filed by a couple challenging the amended rules that mandated both gametes (eggs) to originate from the intending couple, thus excluding the use of donor gametes. The petitioners contended that imposing such a condition would be violative of the Surrogacy Act. The petitioners also argued that such a condition would defeat the purpose of the Act if they were being denied parenthood.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: XXX vs UOI.
6. [Rape Case] The Bombay High Court recently quashed a rape case against a man by mutual consent between him and the survivor and directed him to deposit Rs 5 lakh to the Advocates’ Association of Western India within four weeks. A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar, was hearing a petition filed by the man seeking to quash the rape case by mutual consent. The alleged incident occurred on May 21, 2023, when, under the influence of alcohol, the victim accompanied the accused and was subjected to sexual assault. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the Khar Police, and the accused was later granted anticipatory bail by the sessions court.
Case title: Dr. Nilesh Nandkishore Pund vs State of Maharashtra.
7. [IT Rules] The Bombay High Court will hear the application filed by Kunal Kamra and others for interim relief not to notify the Fact Check Unit (FCU) from 28th February 2024 onwards. The order was passed today by Justice AS Chandurkar, the third judge hearing the petitions challenging the IT Rules Amendment 2023, which establishes a fact-check unit to identify fake and false news on social media. The petition was assigned to the third judge for his opinion after the division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale, delivered a split verdict. In the split verdict, Justice Patel struck down the amended rule establishing FCU while Justice Gokhale ruled against the petitioners. Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya of the Bombay High Court passed an order on 7th February assigning Justice AS Chandurkar as the third judge to give his opinion on the challenge to IT Rules.
Bench: Justice AS Chandurkar.
Case title: Kunal Kamra & Ors vs UOI.
8. [Sameer Wankhede] The Enforcement Directorate informed the Bombay High Court that it will not arrest former NCB Zonal Director and Revenue Officer Sameer Wankhede in the money laundering case registered against him. This statement was made before the division bench of the high court comprising Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar, which was hearing the petition filed by Wankhede challenging the money laundering case filed against him. The ED has accused him of allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs. 25 crores from Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, in return for not framing his son in the Cordelia Drugs Cruise Ship Case. The Enforcement Directorate initiated the case against Wankhede after the CBI filed an FIR against him. The division bench informed Advocate Sandish Patil, representing the ED, that it would not be able to take up the petition tomorrow due to paucity of time. The bench further said it would not be able to hear the petition on Monday due to a court holiday.
Case title: Sameer Wankhede vs UOI.
9. [Domestic Violence] The Bombay High Court has quashed a domestic violence case against a woman, who is the sister-in-law of the complainant by marriage, observing that mere visits by her do not constitute a domestic relationship. “Mere visits of the petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in the shared household. Even otherwise considering the pleadings in the applications read with the reliefs, there is no case of domestic violence made out,” the order read. A single-judge bench of the high court, led by Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, was considering an appeal filed by the woman, who is married, against the sessions court’s order. The complainant had initiated a domestic violence case against her husband, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law, and the married sister-in-law. The magistrate court had issued summons to all the accused except the sister-in-law, reasoning that she did not share the same household. The complainant, however, appealed this decision resulting in the sessions court impleading the sister-in-law as an accused and said whether she shared the household or not will be determined during the trial.
Bench: Justice Sharmila Deshmukh.
Case title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra.
10. [Ex BJP MLC] The Bombay High Court, on February 8, quashed a chargesheet filed against Ex BJP MLC Sagar D Meghe in a case registered against him during the 2014 parliamentary elections. The division bench of the high court at Nagpur, comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali Joshi, heard a petition filed by the Ex BJP MLC seeking to quash the chargesheet. The chargesheet was filed in a case against the Ex BJP MLC after an amount of Rs.4.75 lakh, two liquor bottles, and election material in the form of stickers of a political party were found in his car, which was used for the election campaign. The Ex BJP MLC was booked under Section 123 (Corrupt Practices) of the Representation of Peoples Act and Section 171-H (Illegal payments in connection with an election) and 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the IPC.
Bench: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali Joshi.
Case title: Sagar D. Meghe vs State of Maharashtra.
11. [Dhangar Reservation] The Bombay High Court, after a day-long order, dismissed the petitions seeking a direction to be issued to the Maharashtra Government to recognize the 'Dhangar' (Shepherd) community in the Scheduled Tribe list. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Kamal Khata, heard petitions that claimed that they could not avail of benefits extended to the ‘Dhangad’ community because of a typographical error and that resulted in the exclusion of the Dhangar community from the ST category. It was claimed that the community got listed in the State as 'Dhangad' instead of 'Dhangar' due to a typographical error and was therefore excluded from the list. The petitioners contended that the Presidential Order (PO) of 1950 and the subsequent amendment in 1956 were meant to apply to the Dhangar community.
Bench: Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Maharani Ahilyadevi Samaj Prabodhan Manch vs. State of Maharashtra
12. [Vacancy In Child Rights Commission] The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra State Government to fill up the vacancies in the Maharashtra State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. This order was passed by the division bench of the high court comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye while hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by the NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan. The NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the implementation of directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2018. These directions were sought after the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the government's failure to implement the Juvenile Justice Act. The division bench has asked the government to fill all the vacant posts in the State Level Child Rights Protection Society and the District Level Child Rights Protection Units within a period of three months.
Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye.
Case title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Please Login or Register
