Read Time: 25 minutes
1. [Pre Arrest Bail To Caretaker] The Bombay High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to a senior caretaker of a special home for girls, who was booked for allegedly beating the girls and forcing them to massage her legs. Justice Sarang Kotwal, a single judge, heard the application filed by the senior caretaker, who was booked under Section 75 (Punishment for Cruelty to a Child) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. In a letter to the head of the Thane District Centre for Women and Child Development, it was alleged that both these accused used to ill-treat the girls and would beat them. One of the officers also received a video clip on his mobile phone showing that the caretaker was beating one of the girls. Furthermore, it was claimed that both caretakers forced the girls to massage their legs.
Bench: Justice Sarang Kotwal.
Case title: Madhuri Ramesh Pawar vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [Maratha Reservation] A new Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Bombay High Court to strike down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act 2024 which grants 10% reservation to the Marathas in the state. The PIL filed by Bhausaheb Pawar contends that the said act is in violation of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 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 PIL has relied on the 2021 judgement of the Supreme Court which struck down the reservation granted to the Marathas.
Case title: Bhausaheb Bhujanrao Pawar vs State of Maharashtra.
3. [GN Saibaba] The Bombay High Court has acquitted Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba in a case registered against him alleging links with Maoists. A division bench of the high court at Nagpur comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes pronounced the judgement. The prosecution claimed that the appellants had connections with the CPI Maoist and its frontal organization, the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF). It was further alleged that the appellants were abetting and assisting the hardcore underground cadre of the CPI (Maoist) by providing information, and material, and facilitating the travel and relocation of members from one location to another. The Sessions Court convicted the 6 accused in the case for having links with Maoists and waging war against the state. The Sessions Court had also found that Saibaba and 2 others were in possession of naxal literature which were circulated to the residents of Gadchiroli to incite violence.
Bench: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes.
Case title: GN Saibaba vs State of Maharashtra.
4. [ED Attached Property] The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that once a resolution plan is approved the National Company Law Tribunal has the power to order the release of properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate of a company undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Somesekhar Sundaresan, was hearing a petition filed by the resolution applicants proposing plans for the resolution of DSK Southern Projects Pvt Ltd, which was undergoing CIRP. The Enforcement Directorate had filed a case against the company undergoing CIRP. The ECIR was filed against the company for cheating, which was part of the scheduled offence in the ED's case under the Money Laundering Act. Subsequently, the agency attached the company's properties, which was also confirmed by the adjudicating authority in 2019. These properties, worth Rs. 32 crores, continued to be attached even after the commencement of CIRP.
Bench: Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Somesekhar Sundaresan.
Case title: Shiv Charan & Ors vs ED.
5. [Stay GN Saibaba Acquittal] The Bombay High Court has refused to stay its judgment acquitting Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba for his alleged links with Maoists. A division bench of the high court in Nagpur, comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes, pronounced the judgment this morning. The state government subsequently filed an application seeking a stay on the judgment to allow time for the state to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. During the evening hearing, Advocate General Birendra Saraf informed the bench that they had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. Saraf sought a stay on the ground that there were wider implications of the case, as the trial court had convicted the professor and five others considering their guilt and the seriousness of the charges. Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing the professor, opposed the application, arguing that acquittal was not at the discretion of the court but a fact-finding determination of the innocence of the accused.
Case title: State of Maharashtra vs GN Saibaba.
6. [Vivek Oberoi] The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to the ex-business partner of Bollywood Actor Vivek Oberoi, who was booked for allegedly duping the actor for Rs. 1.55 crores. A single-judge bench of Justice NJ Jamdar heard a bail plea of Sanjay Pran Gopal Saha, who was arrested after Oberoi’s company filed a complaint against former partners, including Saha, his mother Nandita Saha, and Raadhika Pratap Nanda. The FIR filed by the Chartered Accountant of Oberoi stated that Oberoi, along with one Sanjay Saha, invested in an LLP. Oberoi paid Rs. 27 lakhs for a share of 33.33%. A 33.34% share was to be given to Sanjay Saha and his mother Nandita Saha. The remaining 33.33% share belonged to Radhika Nanda. The co-accused formed a separate firm called Anandita Entertainment LLP, and it was alleged that Sanjay siphoned off substantial funds from Oberoi’s firm to Anandita Entertainment LLP. After an inquiry, Oberoi found that he was cheated for Rs. 1.55 crores.
Bench: Justice NJ Jamdar.
Case title: Sanjay Pran Gopal Saha vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
7. [Sharad Pawar] NCP Founder Sharad Pawar has approached the Bombay High Court to be impleaded in a Criminal Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Nanasaheb Yadav seeking a CBI probe against Sharad Pawar. The PIL filed by Yadav seeks a CBI probe against NCP founder Sharad Pawar, Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, and Member of Parliament Supriya Sule over alleged illegal permissions for the construction of a private hill station at Lavasa in Pune. Yadav had earlier, in February 2022, filed a Civil Public Interest Litigation in the high court against the said private hill station, which was disposed of by a division bench headed by Former Chief Justice of the high court and current Supreme Court Judge Dipankar Datta. In the earlier petition, the high court had refused to intervene in the case but noted that there seemed to be exertion of influence and clout by Sharad Pawar and his daughter Supriya Sule in the project.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Sharadchandra Govindrao Pawar vs Nanasaheb Vasatrao Yadav.
8. [GN Saibaba] Merely because a citizen downloads information about communist or Naxal philosophy would not itself be an offence under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Bombay High Court observed in the judgement acquitting Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba for his alleged links with Maoists. “It is by now common knowledge that one can access a huge amount of information from the website of Communist or Naxal philosophy, their activities including videos and video footage of even violent nature; Merely because a citizen downloads this material or even sympathizes with the philosophy, would itself not be an offence unless there is specific evidence led by the prosecution to connect an active role shown by the accused with particular incidents of violence and terrorism, which would be offences within the purview of Sections 13, 20 and 39 of the UAPA,” the court said. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes, acquitted GN Saibaba and five others on March 5 for their alleged links with Maoists.
Case title: GN Saibaba & Ors vs State of Maharashtra.
9. [Deputy CM Maharashtra] The Bombay High Court has set aside the 5-day custody granted by the Sessions Court to a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP – Sharadchandra Pawar) worker who was arrested for sharing a video on social media where death threats were made to Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. A single-judge bench of the high court comprising Justice RN Ladha was hearing a petition filed by Yogesh Rajendra Sawant, who had shared the said video on his Facebook account. Sawant was booked under Sections 500, 153A, 505(1), 506(2), 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 after a complaint was filed with the Santacruz Police. On 29 February 2024, Sawant was arrested and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, Mumbai.
Bench: Justice RN Laddha.
Case title: Yogesh Rajendra Sawant vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
10. [Maratha Quota] The Bombay High Court today issued notice in the Public Interest Litigation challenging the Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) Act, which granted 10% reservation to the Marathas. The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, issued notice to the state government and posted the matter after 6 weeks. The high court also allowed 4 intervention applications filed by the beneficiaries of the reservation seeking to be impleaded as party respondents in the PIL. The bench directed the state government to file a reply within 4 weeks and allowed 2 weeks after that for the petitioner to file its rejoinder. The PIL filed by Bhausaheb Pawar contends that the said act violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. [Living Will] The Maharashtra State Government had informed the Bombay High Court that it has appointed a custodian of living wills in 29 municipal corporations and 388 city councils and Nagar Panchayats in the state. The affidavit was filed by the Maharashtra Development Urban Department before the division bench of the high court comprising Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, who is hearing a PIL filed by Dr. Nikhil D. Datar to create a mechanism to recognize living wills. A living will is an advance healthcare directive documented to communicate a patient's healthcare preferences, such as the use of ventilator machines or life-sustaining equipment, in situations where the patient is unable to convey their wishes to the medical staff. During the previous hearing, Dr. Nikhil Datar, a gynaecologist who appeared in person before the court, highlighted the absence of an authority designated to act as the custodian of living wills despite the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment.
Case title: Dr Nikhil D Datar & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
12. [Maratha Reservation] The Bombay High Court on Friday stated that advertisements for government jobs and admissions in educational institutions by the beneficiaries of the Maratha Quota will be subject to the court's order. The division bench of the high court comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla was hearing petitions filed challenging the state government’s decision granting 10% reservation to Marathas. Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte, who filed one of the petitions, argued that the state government was proceeding with the admission process under the new quota for NEET UG 2024. Advocate General Birendra Saraf informed the bench that a Public Interest Litigation had also been filed wherein notice was issued, and the Chief Justice was expected to pass an administrative order clubbing all the petitions together. The division bench however said that in the interest of the justice, if any applications are received under the advertisement they shall be subject to orders of the court.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Dr.Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil & Ors. vs The Chief Minister, State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Please Login or Register
