Read Time: 29 minutes
1. [Minor’s Termination of Pregnancy] The Bombay High Court recently rejected a petition filed by the mother of a rape victim seeking to terminate the 30-week-old pregnancy of her daughter. The division bench, consisting of Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar, heard the petition filed by the mother, whose 15-year-old daughter was subjected to sexual assault. Following the high court's order, the District Medical Board submitted a report on February 15, stating that the risk of terminating the pregnancy was not higher than the risk associated with full-term delivery. The paediatrician on the board noted that there was a strong possibility of a live birth with prematurity if delivery was performed at this gestational age. Furthermore, the neurologist emphasized the high chances of perinatal complications and the need for neonatal intensive care. Additionally, the neurologist mentioned the potential for long-term neurological complications and associated disabilities in the newborn.
Bench: Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: A (Mother of X) vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [Chanda Kochhar] The Bombay High Court, while confirming the interim bail granted to Former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar, stated that the exercise of the right to remain silent cannot be equated with non-cooperation. “It is relevant to note that though it is within the powers of the Investigating Agency to interrogate the accused has a right to remain silent. The right to silence emanates from Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which gives an accused the right against self incrimination. Suffice it to say that exercise of the right to remain silent cannot be equated with non co-operation,” the court said. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar, further observed that the arrest by the CBI amounted to an abuse of power.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Chanda Kochhar vs CBI & Anr.
3. [Sameer Wankhede] The Enforcement Directorate has informed the Bombay High Court that the agency will not arrest IRS Officer and Former NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede in the money laundering case registered against him in the Cordelia Drug Cruise Ship Case till March 1. The division bench of the high court comprising Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar was hearing the petition filed by Wankhede seeking to quash the money laundering case registered against Wankhede. 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. Advocate Sandish Patil, appearing for the agency, informed the bench that the earlier statement of no coercive action against Wankhede can be continued as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was to appear physically before the high court on March 1.
Case title: Sameer Wankhede vs ED.
4. [Maratha Quota] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the appointment of Retired Justice Sunil B Shukre as the Chairman and other members of the Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC). The PIL was mentioned before the division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, which posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks. The Maharashtra State Commission for Backward Classes (MSCBC), headed by Retired Justice Sunil Shukre, recently submitted a report recommending 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.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Ashish Mishra vs State of Maharastra & Ors.
5. [Ajit Pawar vs Sharad Pawar] The Ajit Pawar Faction has approached the Bombay High Court to challenging the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker's decision not to disqualify the 10 MLAs from the Sharad Pawar Faction. The petition, filed by Ajit Pawar Faction's Chief Whip Anil Patil, is expected to be heard tomorrow by a division bench of the high court comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla. Anil Patil, chief whip of the Ajit Pawar Faction, has challenged the February 15 order of the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker. The Speaker dismissed the petitions filed by the Ajit Pawar Faction seeking the disqualification of MLAs from the Sharad Pawar Faction.
6. [Notice Issued in Ajit Pawar’s Plea] The Bombay High Court has issued notice in the petition filed by the Deputy CM Ajit Pawar’s Faction challenging the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s decision not to disqualify the 10 MLAs of Sharad Pawar Faction. The division bench of the high court comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla issued notice and posted the matter to be heard on 14th March. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Chief Whip of Ajit Pawar Faction, Anil Patil, submitted that the Election Commission and Assembly Speaker had recognized Ajit Pawar Faction as the real NCP, emphasizing that the Sharad Pawar Faction ought to be disqualified. Anil Patil, chief whip of the Ajit Pawar Faction, has challenged the February 15 order of the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Anil Bhaidas Patil vs Jayant Patil & Ors.
7. [Illegal Hoardings] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday said that no political party, religious organisation, or commercial organisation can be legally permitted to put up hoardings on street lights, roads, or footpaths for their personal gains. “No individual or group of individuals be it a political party or commercial or religious organisation can legally be permitted to utilise footpaths, street lights, roads for personal gains and advertisement, especially keeping in view the hazard caused to the pedestrian and other users of roads,” the court said. The high court's division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing a plea concerning illegal hoardings being put up by different individuals and organisations. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) informed the court that it had taken down a total of 10,839 political hoardings, 4,551 commercial hoardings, and 32,481 illegal hoardings. The BMC stated that information about 410 illegal hoardings was sent to the police, resulting in 22 FIRs being registered.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Suswarajya Foundation Satara & Anr vs Collector.
8. [Sheena Bora Murder] The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has approached the Bombay High Court seeking a stay on the release of a documentary centred around the Sheena Bora Murder Case, featuring the prime accused, Indrani Mukerjea. The division bench, consisting of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande was hearing the petition filed by the CBI after the Special CBI Court in Mumbai had declined to intervene in the release, citing a lack of jurisdiction to do so. The CBI had sought a stay on the ground that the trial was yet to be concluded. The documentary titled “The Indrani Mukerjea Story: The Buried Truth” is based on the story of the disappearance of 25-year-old Bora which is set to release on Netflix on 23rd February 2024.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande.
Case title: CBI vs Indrani Mukerjea & Ors.
9. [Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case] The Bombay High Court quashed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik Chakraborty, and their father on Thursday. The LOC had been issued by the CBI in connection with the Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, quashed the LOC that had been issued against them in 2020. Rhea had filed a petition in the high court to quash the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her, citing difficulties in international travel and the hindrance it posed to fulfilling her work commitments. In earlier proceedings, the high court questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding the issuance of the LOC solely based on an FIR.
Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande.
Case title: Rhea Chakraborty vs CBI.
10. [Indrani Mukherjea Docuseries] The Bombay High Court has asked the OTT platform Netflix to organize a special pre-screening of the docuseries based on Indrani Mukherjea, the prime accused in the Sheena Bora Death Case, for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The division bench of the high court, led by Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a plea filed by the CBI seeking a stay on the docuseries scheduled to be aired on Netflix tomorrow. The CBI approached the high court after the Special CBI Court in Mumbai declined to halt the release, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The CBI argued that the docuseries should only be released after the trial concludes to prevent potential impact on the trial proceedings and public perception.
11. [Politicians] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that politicians appear to have diverted from their primary responsibility to ensure public administration. “The politicians take pride in showing each other down. The politicians appear to have diverted from their primary responsibility to ensure public administration is conducted impartially and neutrally. They also appear to have forgotten that the quality of a good politician is a vision and the power to implement that vision. They are supposed to take the state forward, make the commoner's life easy and comfortable, and educate people,” the court observed. A single-judge bench of the high court in Aurangabad, headed by Justice SG Mehare was hearing a petition related to a panchayat election in the Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra. The petitioners argued that the electoral members, who were the respondents in the case, had submitted their affidavit of election expense statements one day after the deadline set by election authorities.
Bench: Justice SG Mehare.
Case title: Dr. Ramnath & Ors vs Mangal & Ors.
12. [SRA] The Bombay High Court has recently directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority not to issue eviction notices scheduled for weekends, as the courts are not accessible to affected individuals on those days. It also observed that slum residents are humans and “should not be treated like pieces on a chessboard”. “Even if a statute prescribes periods of 24 hours, 36 hours or 72 hours, it does not mean that the authority has to give only that period to vacate. We now propose to take the liberty of issuing a direction applicable to all authorities everywhere that no notices for eviction are to be given mentioning only hours. A specific date must be mentioned, and that date cannot be over a weekend when courts are unavailable to the affected persons,” the order stated. It added: “Justice under our Constitution must mean the right to expect fair treatment from an administrative authority and, if not, the right to approach a court for redressal. Justice cannot be an empty promise.” The division bench of the high court, comprising Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata, also observed that the slum dwellers are humans and should not be treated like pieces on a chessboard.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Jijaba Dashrath Shinde vs State of Maharashtra.
13. [Patients Treated Outside Hospital] The Bombay High Court has asked the State Government to file an affidavit regarding the patients being treated outside hospitals in the Buldhana District of Maharashtra. The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor took up the matter today after it was mentioned by the Amicus Curiae Advocate Mohit Khanna in suo moto PIL being heard by the high court pertaining to deaths in the state-run hospitals in the district of Nanded and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district of Maharashtra. Khanna mentioned the matter while citing a news report that indicated 150 people had become ill in Buldhana after consuming prasad in a religious ceremony. Government Pleader PP Kakade informed the bench that all 150 individuals sought medical attention at the 30-bedded Bibi Hospital, and due to the overwhelming number, they had to be treated outside the hospital premises, despite having adequate staff and medicines.
Case title: High Court on Its Own Motion.
14. [Maratha Quota] The state has the right to impose restrictions on strikes or protests, which citizens were constitutionally entitled to hold, the Bombay High Court observed on Friday while hearing a plea against the state-wide protest called for Maratha Reservation. “Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India gives a right to the citizens to assemble peacefully and without arms. Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India provides, to move freely throughout the territory of India. The said fundamental rights are with reasonable restriction, as more specifically stated in Article 19(3) and 19(5) of the Constitution of India. It is for the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right/rights conferred by the said clauses in the interest of general public or for the protection of the interest of it,” the order reads. The division bench, consisting of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak, was presiding over a petition filed by Mumbai lawyer Gunratan Sadavarte against the statewide agitation organized by Maratha activist Manoj Jarenge Patil.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak.
Case title: Gunratan N. Sadavarte vs Additional Chief Secretary & Ors
Please Login or Register
