Read Time: 17 minutes
1. [Janijira Fort] The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the construction of a jetty near the Janjira Fort in the Raigad District. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, heard the PIL filed by local politician Mahesh Mohite, who claimed that the fort in question was a protected monument. The petition contended that the Maritime Board had awarded the tender for the construction of the jetty to DVP Infra Project Private Ltd. This jetty was intended to be built at the entrance of the fort, facing the sea. The local politician submitted that the fishermen's community had conveyed their concerns to him through a letter regarding the construction, prompting his approach to the court.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Mahesh Harishchandea Mohite vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Click here to read more.
2. [House for 2008 Mumbai Terror Attack Victim] The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra State Government to consider the plea of a victim of the 2008 Mumbai Terror Attacks, urging for the allocation of a house under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) scheme. 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. In her petition, Rotawan explained that she had approached the housing department seeking the allotment of a house under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Scheme, as the compensation received from the state government was insufficient for her to afford a residence.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Devika Rotawan vs State of Maharashtra.
3. [Traffic in Pune] The Bombay High Court has directed the Commissioner of Police of Pune to submit an affidavit detailing the present state of traffic in the city of Pune, along with proposed measures to address traffic issues through modern technology. The division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Kishore Mansukhani in 2015. The PIL sought the implementation of modern technology by the state to effectively tackle traffic problems. Advocate Anil Anturkar, representing Mansukhani, asserted that the state government had not undertaken any measures to address the traffic issues in Pune. He highlighted instances of road rage occurring in the city due to insufficient traffic management. The division bench expressed its concern, noting that the PIL was filed in 2015, and with eight years having passed since its filing, the court was not aware of the current traffic situation and the measures in place to manage it.
Case title: Kishore Mansukhani vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
4. [Disability Act] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 should not merely remain a statute book. “..in spite of Court calling upon them to do so, overlooks the responsibility to treat persons with disabilities differently. The legislation for the disabled should not merely remain in the statute book; rather, the spirit behind the legislation must be applied by all authorities in its practical application showing appropriate sensitivity and flexibility,” the order reads. A division bench comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and MM Sathaye was hearing a plea filed by a 31-year-old visually impaired woman. Shanta Sonwane's candidature for the post of Assistant in Railways was cancelled by the Railway Recruitment Cell. Sonwane, who is 100% visually impaired, argued in her plea that she sought assistance from a stranger in a cyber café to fill out the form for the Assistant position in Railways. The recruitment cell rejected Shanta Sonwane's candidature citing an error in her application form related to her birth year. Sonwane argued that the mistake could have occurred inadvertently by the stranger who assisted her in filling out the form.
Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and MM Sathaye.
Case title: Shanta Digambar Sonawane vs UOI & Anr.
5. [Sheena Bora Murder] The Bombay High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking to block the release of the docuseries titled 'The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth.' The division bench, consisting of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, stated that after watching the docuseries, they found nothing prejudicial against the prosecution in its content. “We didn't think there was anything. We initially thought there may be something and hence we also saw the docuseries. Public perception is the least of our concerns. What even she (Indrani) has said, everything is in the public domain. Honestly, we have not found anything that goes against the prosecution. We felt that you had a genuine apprehension and, therefore, we gave you the opportunity to view the series and we did not even let the other party argue on that day,” the court said. The CBI approached the high court after the Special CBI Court in Mumbai declined to halt the release, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande.
Case title: CBI vs Netflix India & Ors.
6. [Sameer Wankhede] The Bombay High Court has extended the interim relief from arrest that was granted to IRS Officer and Former Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede until March 27 in the money laundering case registered against him. The division bench, consisting of Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar, is currently hearing Wankhede's petition to quash the money laundering case filed against him. The division bench adjourned the hearing today after the Enforcement Directorate requested time to file a short reply. The court has scheduled the next hearing for the petition filed by Sameer Wankhede on March 27, 2024. In an earlier hearing, on February 20th, the Enforcement Directorate had stated that it would refrain from arresting Wankhede until March 1, as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was to appear on behalf of the agency.
Bench: Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Sameer Wankhede vs ED.
7. [Maratha Reservation] A new writ petition has been lodged in the Bombay High Court, challenging the decision of the Maharashtra State Assembly that granted 10% reservation to the Maratha Community under the Socially and Economically Backward Class Community (SBEC). 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. The petition has been filed by Advocate Jaishree Laxamanrao Patil, Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte, Shankarrao Linge, and Rajaram Patil. The petition seeks to quash the report submitted by Retired Justice Sunil Shukre, contending that the recommendation for reservation for Marathas violates the law by exceeding the prescribed limits for reservations.
Case title: Jaishree Laxamanrao Pati & Ors vs State of Maharashtra,
8. [Sexual Assault of Minor] The Bombay High Court, while affirming the conviction of a man for sexually exploiting six intellectually challenged minors observed that it is unfortunate that in recent times people knock on the doors of tantriks/babas. “It is an unfortunate reality of our times, that people, at times knock on the doors of so called tantrics/babas, for a solution to their problems and that these so called tantrics/babas, take advantage of the vulnerability and blind faith of these people and exploit them. The so called, tantrics/babas not only exploit their vulnerability, by extracting money from them, but also many a times, sexually assault the victims, under the guise of providing solutions,” the order states. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, was hearing an appeal filed by the man challenging the trial court's decision that convicted him for sexually exploiting six intellectually challenged minors.
Case title: Mehandi Kasim Jenul Abidin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
