Read Time: 01 hours
1. [High Court New Building] The Bombay High Court on Monday expressed its displeasure over the delay by the Maharashtra State Government in allotting land for the new high court building in Bandra. The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, remarked that the lives of the court officers were at peril due to the bad condition of the high court building. “The condition of the Bombay High Court building is well known. The condition of this building and also the annexe building is bad. Our officers work there. Their lives are in peril. They work in dangerous conditions. There is no space for storage, no space to walk, and the stairs are in poor condition,” Chief Justice said. The bench also expressed displeasure over the state government not changing the revenue records.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Case title: Ahmed Abdi vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [IT Rules] The Bombay High Court has rejected the interim application filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and others seeking to direct the Central Government not to notify the Fact Check Unit until the opinion of the third judge is pronounced. Justice AS Chandurkar, the third judge hearing the case, stated that the petitioner did not make a case for the court to pass an order to continue the statement made by the Central Government not to notify the Fact Check Unit (FCU). The high court said that the opinion of the third judge on the interim relief will now be placed before the earlier division bench to pass appropriate orders. The high court rejecting the interim application effectively allows the Central Government to notify the Fact Check Unit under the amended IT Rules to identify and order take down of fake, false, and misleading news on social media. A Single Judge Bench of Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing an application filed by Stand-Up Comedian Kunal Kamra and others seeking a direction to be issued to the Central Government to notify the Fact-Check Unit under the amended IT Rules until the third judge gives his opinion.
Bench: Justice AS Chandurkar.
Case title: Kunal Kamra & Ors vs UOI.
3. [Bail] The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to an ex-husband who was booked for forcefully having sexual intercourse with his ex-wife, along with another man. Along with the ex-husband, the high court also granted bail to the man with whom the ex-husband allegedly forced the victim to have sexual intercourse. The single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice NJ Jamadar, was hearing a bail application filed by Miraj and Asif, who were booked under Section 376D (Gang Rape) of the Indian Penal Code. The victim, Miraj's ex-wife, divorced him in March 2022 through a Khulanama. Even after the dissolution of the marriage, the victim and Miraj continued to cohabit with mutual consent. It was alleged that on 16th August 2022, Miraj forced his ex-wife to have sexual intercourse with him and Asif. Upon her refusal, Miraj forcibly undressed her, and thereafter, both the applicants had forcible sexual intercourse with her.
Bench: Justice NJ Jamadar.
Case title: Asif Mohammad Shanif Ansari & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
4. [Disabled Access to Footpath] The Bombay High Court has directed the State Government to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to provide easy access for disabled persons on the footpaths in the city of Mumbai. “The board is constituted, accordingly, we call upon the AGP to file an affidavit by the state advisory board by a high-level officer which shall contain details of steps taken for providing easy access to the disabled on footpaths in the city of Mumbai,” the order states. The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, was hearing a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered by the high court after it received an email from a 25-year-old Shivaji Park resident, Karan Shah, who has been wheelchair-bound since birth. Senior Advocate Anil Singh, representing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), informed the court that the deadline of three months for resolving discrepancies related to bollards on footpaths affecting disabled persons is ending on March 7, and work is currently in progress.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: High Court on its own motion
5. [Release of Man after 19 years] The Bombay High Court recently ordered the release of a man 19 years after his conviction upon finding that he was a juvenile when the offence was committed. A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak, heard an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. ‘ The man, who was convicted of rape under Section 276(f) of the Indian Penal Code, challenged the government order dated 7th November 2019, which rejected his application for premature release. The trial court convicted the man of rape and sentenced him to life imprisonment. While his main petition was being heard, the man filed an interim application seeking his release from jail on the grounds of his juvenility at the time of the commission of the said crime.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak.
Case title: Pintu Chauhan vs State of Maharashtra.
6. [2008 Mumbai Terror Attack] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday appreciated the State Government’s decision to provide a house to Devika Rotawan, a victim of the 2008 Mumbai Terror Attacks, under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category as a special case. “We heartily appreciate such decision taken by the Hon’ble Minister to allot to the petitioner a tenement which, according to us, would grant real justice to the petitioner, considering her suffering which we have noted in detail in our earlier order as noted hereinabove. It is stated that it would take about six months for the formalities in that regard to be completed. Let the same be completed within such period and an appropriate tenement be allotted to the petitioner,” the order reads. The division bench, consisting of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla, heard the petition filed by one Devika Rotawan, who sustained injuries from a bullet during the 2008 Mumbai Terror Attacks. Rotawan played a crucial role as an important witness during the trial of the 2008 Mumbai Terror Attacks, which ultimately led to the conviction of the terrorist Ajmal Kasab.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Devika Natvarlal Rotawan vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
7. [CISF] The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a penalty imposed on a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officer who knocked on a woman’s door late at night to borrow lemons. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye, heard a plea filed against the action taken by the officer's superior between July 2021 and June 2022, imposing a penalty for his misconduct. The CISF officer's salary was reduced by his superior for three years, during which he would also not receive an increment. The penalty was imposed on the officer after it was found that he had consumed alcohol before the incident and was aware that the woman's husband, who was a colleague of the officer, was out of town for election duty in West Bengal. On the intervening night of April 19 and April 20, 2021, the CISF officer knocked on the door of the woman, who was his neighbour in the official headquarters.
Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye.
Case title: Arvind Kumar vs Smt Laxmi Sanjay Nikam & Ors.
8. [Maratha Reservation] The Bombay High Court stated on Tuesday that it will hear the petition challenging the State Government’s decision granting 10% reservation to Marathas for interim relief and consider staying the legislation on 10th April. The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, said that the bench has to keep in mind the principles laid down while hearing pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation. “It is not a simple administrative order. It is a legislation. Hence, we have to keep in mind the principles laid down while hearing pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation. There is a principle of presumed constitutionality. This is a legislative enactment, we will have to give due weightage to all arguments. We want to give the state some time to respond on the interim relief," the court said. The Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC), led by Retired Justice Sunil Shukre, recently submitted a report favouring the reservation for the Maratha community. The cabinet approved this recommendation, and a bill for 10% reservation for Marathas was tabled and approved in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 20th February.
Case title: Jaishree Laxamanrao Pati & Ors vs State of Maharashtra.
9. [SC/ST Act] The Bombay High Court has recently held that all proceedings under the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, must be video recorded, even when they are held in open courts. The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay and Justice Sarang Kotwal, was hearing a reference made by a single judge during the consideration of a bail application in a criminal appeal. The high court was considering the bail application of three doctors namely Hema Ahuja, Bhakti Mehare, and Ankita Khandelwal who were charged with abetting the suicide of their junior colleague, Dr. Payal Tadvi, in 2019. Dr Tadvi, a second-year postgraduate medical student at Mumbai's BYL Nair hospital, took her own life on May 22, 2019, in her hostel room. A purported suicide note attributed her death to harassment by the three senior doctors. The family of Dr Tadvi claimed that the accused had subjected her to harassment, ragging, and casteist slurs. The trio was initially arrested but later released on bail.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay and Justice Sarang Kotwal.
Case title: Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
10. [Cleanliness] The Bombay High Court recently directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to declare 580 sweeping and cleaning workers as permanent employees while observing that cleanliness for one class of citizens cannot be achieved by engaging in the slavery of others. “The anxiety to find innovative ways to maintain a clean city can be understood, but in a welfare state, cleanliness for one class of citizens cannot be achieved by engaging in ‘slavery’ of the others. These 580 workers, working round the year, provide the foundation on which the City functions,” the court said. A single judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav was hearing an appeal filed by the MCGM against the order of the industrial tribunal directing MCGM to declare permanent jobs for the 580 workers and extend all benefits to them. The workers union, Kachara Vahatuk Shramik Sangh, had sought them to be declared as permanent employees. These workers are responsible for sweeping, cleaning, and picking up garbage in Mumbai.
Bench: Justice Milind Jadhav.
Case title: Commissioner MCGM vs Kachara Vahatuk Shramik Sangh.
11. [Action Against Advocate] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take necessary action against the advocate who appeared without a Vakalatnama and without being enrolled in the State roll of advocates. “Vakalatnama of Adv. A. Karim Pathan which is filed on record on behalf of the applicant – accused does not indicate name or signature of Mr. Avnendra Kumar, meaning thereby there is no Vakalatnama along with Adv. A. Karim Pathan who appears to be on the roll of Bar Council of Maharashtra, which is in breach of the aforesaid condition,” the order reads. A single judge bench of Justice PK Chavan was hearing a bail application filed by one Moinoddin Golder Aminoddin Golder. The court was informed that bail had already been granted by a coordinate bench on November 29, 2022, in an application filed on February 3, 2022. Despite this, the accused filed another bail application on August 19, 2022, through Adv. A. Karim Pathan.
Bench: Justice PK Chavan.
Case title: Moinoddin Golder Aminoddin Golder vs State of Maharashtra.
12. [Major Anuj Sood] The wife of late Major Anuj Sood has approached the Bombay High Court seeking ex-servicemen benefits from the Maharashtra State Government. Anuj Sood, aged 30, sacrificed his life on May 2, 2020, while extracting civilian hostages from terrorist hideouts. In recognition of his extraordinary bravery, Sood was awarded the "Shaurya Chakra" by the President of India, effective from April 29, 2020. The widow has approached the high court seeking ex-servicemen allowances, which have been denied by the State Government. The said allowances were denied to the widow on the ground that Sood was not from Maharashtra and had migrated to Maharashtra. The wife claimed benefits on the ground that the family had been residing in Maharashtra for the last 15 years as wished by her late husband. She added that Sood always intended to reside in Pune, Maharashtra.
Case title: Smt.Aakriti Singh Sood vs State of Maharashtra.
13. [Rape] The Bombay High Court recently denied bail to a man accused of raping a minor while observing that if there was real love, the man would not have attempted to destroy the child. “Since the victim was below 18 years, he has been rightly prosecuted for the offences under the provision of POCSO Act also. Had there been real love with the victim, applicant would not have destroyed his own baby,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, led by Justice PK Chavan, heard the bail plea of Arif Junail Khan. Khan was booked under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. The case against Khan was registered by a Police Sub Inspector after receiving information on 28th August 2019 that a person was disposing of a premature foetus. After reaching the spot, the sub-inspector noticed that the crowd was assaulting Khan because of having illicit relations with the minor girl. It was alleged that after the said illicit relationship, Khan gave her abortion pills which caused a miscarriage. After the miscarriage, Khan attempted to dispose of the premature-born foetus and was caught red-handed.
Case title: Arif Jainul Khan vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
14. [Murder Over Mobile Phone] The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man who was booked for the murder of a relative following a scuffle over demanding a cell phone. A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Madhav Jamdar, was hearing a bail application filed by a man booked under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was a close relative of the deceased. According to the prosecution's case, the incident occurred when the deceased demanded a cell phone from the applicant, who refused to provide it, leading to a scuffle between them. During the scuffle, the deceased's uncle attempted to intervene. However, the applicant then used a knife to assault the deceased. The uncle and other relatives rushed the deceased to the hospital. Initially, one hospital refused admission, so they took the deceased to another hospital where he eventually succumbed to the injuries.
Bench: Justice Madhav Jamdar.
Case title: Arif Khan Asif Khan vs State of Maharashtra.
15. [Eve Teasing] The Bombay High Court recently observed that eve teasing is very common and often becomes a reason for another serious offence, for which stringent punishment should be imposed. “There is need to keep under control such instances of teasing young girls, which are common and often become reason for another offence and sometime to serious one. Therefore, stringent punishment should be imposed on the accused persons for the offence of Section 304 (Part-II),” the court said. The division bench of the high court comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak was hearing an appeal filed by three men whom the trial court convicted of killing a man. The case pertained to eve-teasing of a young girl by one Abhijit Sangare. The young girl complained about the incident to her mother, who then informed her brother. The brother subsequently informed their neighbour (the deceased), who went to Sangare and warned him not to engage in such acts. After warning Sangare, the deceased returned home with the victim, after a while, Sangare, along with two men, reached the deceased's house with iron rods and a wooden log and assaulted him.
Case title: Eknath Laxman Shinde vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
