Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Right To Speedy Justice] The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man who had been in custody for more than 7 years without facing any trial. The high court observed that there was a violation of the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution. “Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty. It is trite law that an accused has a right to speedy trial and the same is implicit in the scope and ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case, although the Applicants are under incarceration for about seven years and four months, the trial has not yet commenced and not even a single witness has been examined. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the Applicant’s fundamental right to speedy trial,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar heard a bail application filed by 2 men, citing that they had been in custody for almost seven years and four months, yet the trial had not commenced. The crime in this case was lodged on 05.12.2015. Applicant No.1 was arrested on 08.06.2016, and Applicant No.2 was arrested on 10.08.2016.
Bench: Justice Madhav Jamdar.
Case title: Amol Duryodhan Kale & Anr vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [Sexual Exploitation of Neice] The Bombay High Court recently denied bail to a man (Fufa) booked for sexually exploiting two minor girls, observing that in many cases, the abusers are known to the victims and may even be living in the same house. “It is thus clear that most commonly abusers are persons who are well known to the child and may be living in the house. It is needless to say anything more on this aspect. It is also stated as to how the children are more easily threatened and less likely to speak out about the abuse,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of the high court, presided over by Justice PK Chavan, was hearing a bail application filed by a 'Fufa' (paternal uncle) of the victims who was accused of sexually exploiting and betraying the trust of two minors aged 9 and 13 years old. It was alleged that the accused betrayed their trust by administering some stupefying substance, showing them pornographic videos, and snapping nude videos of the victims. Furthermore, he also extended threats of making the same viral if the victims disclosed his actions. The family of the accused and the victim's families used to visit each other's houses frequently. One of the victims informed her parents that the accused used to molest her, snap videos and photographs, and show pornographic videos on his mobile phone.
Bench: Justice PK Chavan.
Case title: Unnikrishnan Rajeevkumar Bhaskaran Alias Rajiv Unnikrishnan vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
3. [Elderly People Neglected] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that due to the withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly people are exposed to emotional neglect and a lack of physical and financial support. “..due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family, consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are now forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. That ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons,” the order reads. A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla, was hearing an petition filed by a son against the order of the Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal directing the son and his wife to vacate the house of the elderly mother. The aged mother had approached the tribunal after she was driven out of the house when one of her sons, along with his wife, had visited her and refused to leave the house despite having their independent residence. The mother was allotted the house by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority after the demise of her husband in 2015. She alleged that her son wanted to illegally oust her to exclusively occupy her tenement to grab the property during her lifetime and to the exclusion of other siblings. The tribunal ruled in favour of the mother and directed the son and his wife to vacate the premises.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
4. [7 Stack Parking] The Bombay High Court has recently ordered the removal of seven mechanized cantilever car parking spaces (stack parking) while observing that relaxation of rules cannot be permitted if it adversely affects public safety. “Obviously, therefore, if it is demonstrated that the relaxation adversely affects safety, fire safety, and public safety that no such permission can be granted or if granted is liable to be immediately revoked,” the order reads. A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata, was hearing a petition filed by Ophthalmologist Rahul Jain, who challenged the decision to set up seven mechanized cantilever car parking spaces as it was blocking the entrance of his premises. The parking system was required as the developer had amended the development plan to add two additional floors.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Rahul Jain vs MCGM & Ors.
5. [Maratha Protest] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the Maharashtra State Government’s Resolution for providing Kunbi Caste Certificates to Marathas in Maharashtra. The PIL, filed by the Chairman of the Other Backward Class Welfare Community, Mangesh Sasane, argues that the January 26 notification issued by the Maharashtra Government was eating into the reservations of OBC by including Marathas in OBC. The notification was issued by the government to amend the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012. The people of the Maratha Community have been protesting in the State of Maharashtra seeking Maratha Reservations in government jobs. On January 20, 2024, Maratha Reservation Activist Jarenge Patil started marching towards Mumbai from Jalna. Patil sought Kunbi certificates to be issued to the people of the Maratha Community for availing reservation benefits.
Case title: Mangesh Sasane vs State of Maharashtra.
6. [IT Rules] The Bombay High Court has delivered a split judgement in the petitions challenging the amended IT Rules establishing a fact check unit to identify fake and false news. The division bench of the high court comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale said that the matter would now be placed before the third judge by the Chief Justice of the high court. “Each of us has pronounced separate judgement and have not been able to concur. The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice to be referred to the third judge. As a matter of administrative courtesy to the Chief Justice and third judge, we note that the statement may continue for 10 days from today," the court said. Justice GS Patel has decided in favour of the petitioner and Justice Neela Gokhale has decided against the petitioners. The matter will be referred to a third judge of the high court.
Bench: Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale.
Case title: Kunal Kamra & Ors vs UOI.
7. [Proof of 1st Marriage on 2nd Wife] The Bombay High Court has recently quashed a complaint against a second wife of a man and her father for abetting bigamy while observing that the onus of finding out if a man's first marriage is subsisting cannot be put on the second wife. “A plain reading of Section 494 would give a cause to the wife from the first marriage to register an offence under Section 494 of the IPC against the husband. There is nothing on record to indicate that the second wife contracted the marriage with the husband being aware that the first marriage is subsisting. A penal statute must be strictly construed. The onus cannot be cast on the second wife to find out if the first marriage is subsisting. That is not the contemplation of Section 494 of the IPC,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice MS Karnik, was hearing an application moved by the second wife of the man and her father seeking to quash the complaint filed against them by the man's first wife. The man and his first wife married in 1990 and had three children out of wedlock. Due to ill-treatment by the husband, the first wife left the matrimonial house on 10th July 2005. After moving to her father’s house, she came to know that the husband had married another woman on 9th October 2005.
Bench: Justice MS Karnik.
Case title: Anita Sudam Ahire & Anr vs state of Maharashtra & Ors.
8. [Contempt Notice To Lawyers] The Bombay High Court has recently initiated contempt proceedings against three lawyers for bringing a false news report before the judge, casting aspersions on the integrity of the judge and compelling him to recuse from the case. A division bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar initiated contempt proceedings against three lawyers, including a junior lawyer. The contempt proceedings were initiated after Advocate Zoheb Merchant, a junior advocate, filed an application along with a news clipping on behalf of his client Bhishma Pahuja, who is also an advocate. The intervention application was filed in a petition by Amar Mulchandani seeking to quash a case against him related to money laundering. The news clipping alleged that a high court judge was likely to grant bail to Mulchandani because of his friendship with Justice Nitin Sambre. A complaint was filed with the Chief Justice of the high court, along with the news report, seeking directions to withdraw the matter from Justice Sambre.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Amar Mulchandani vs ED.
9. [Rape] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that it cannot be said that the offence of rape was committed merely because the man backed out from his promise to marry, citing parental disagreement. “It is clear from the allegations in the F.I.R. that it is the applicant, who was ready to marry. Merely because he resiled from his promise to marry, since his parents were not agreeable to their marriage, it cannot be said that the applicant committed the offence punishable under Section 375 of I.P.C. In the fact of the present case, no offence was made out against the applicant,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of the high court at Nagpur, presided over by Justice MW Chandwani, was hearing an appeal filed by a man who sought to have the rape case against him quashed. The victim met the accused through her sister in 2016, following which they engaged in a physical relationship based on the accused's promise to marry. The physical relationship persisted within the rented house of the victim's sister. Subsequently, the victim discovered that the accused had become involved with another woman. Upon confronting the accused, he disclosed that he was willing to marry her, but his parents disagreed.
Bench: Justice MW Chandwani.
Case title: Gaurav Wankhede vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
10. [Kangana Ranaut vs Javed Akhtar] The Bombay High Court has rejected the petition filed by Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut, which sought a stay on the defamation proceedings initiated by lyricist Javed Akhtar. Justice PD Naik, presiding as a single judge on the bench, rejected Kangana's petition after the bench had reserved its order on January 18, 2024. Akhtar filed a defamation case against Ranaut following certain remarks she made about him during an interview with Republic TV. Pertinently, Ranaut had also filed a cross-complaint against Akhtar, alleging criminal conspiracy, extortion, and invasion of privacy. However, it was only in July 2023 that the magistrate court dropped extortion charges against Akhtar and summoned him for other charges. Akhtar subsequently filed an application before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court stayed criminal proceedings against Akhtar until his revision application before the sessions court was heard. Nonetheless, the defamation case filed by Akhtar against Ranaut continued, prompting her to approach the high court seeking a stay.
Bench: Justice PD Naik.
Case title: Kangana Ranaut vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
11. [Sexual Assault of Neice] The Bombay High Court recently reversed the conviction of two men found guilty of committing penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on their 13-year-old orphaned niece while observing that there can be no offence of rape without penetration. “It is fairly settled position that penetration is sine qua non for constituting offence of rape. Though partial, it is essential that there has to be penetration or insertion,” the order reads The high court convicted them of sexual assault, thereby reducing their sentence from 10 years to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. A single-judge bench of the high court at Aurangabad comprising Justice Abhay Waghase heard an appeal filed by two men who were convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(f)(n) of the IPC and Sections 4 (Penetrative Sexual Assault) and 6 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault) of the POCSO Act. After the victim was found crying by one of the teachers at her school, she narrated to the teacher that she was residing with her maternal uncle due to being an orphan. She stated that her maternal aunt's husband and maternal uncle compelled her to perform household chores, subjected her to hunger, and forced her to sleep in the bathroom.
Bench: Justice Abhay Waghase.
Case title Sudhir Suradkar & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
12. [Bail To Husband In Abetment Case] The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a husband who was charged with instigating his wife through continuous harassment, pushing her to contemplate suicide along with her two children. A single judge bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar was hearing a bail application filed by a man who was booked under Section 306 (Abetting Suicide) and Section 323 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on 4th May 2023, the wife of the man killed her two children, a 3.5-year-old son, and a 2-year-old daughter, by smothering them with a pillow. The wife subsequently took her own life through suicide after killing her children. The drastic step was allegedly taken due to continuous harassment by her husband, brother-in-law, brother-in-law's wife, and mother-in-law.
Case title: Suhas Kailas Chavan vs State of Maharashtra.
13. [POCSO – English Teacher] The Bombay High Court recently denied bail to an English teacher who was charged with stalking and sexually harassing a student. A single-judge bench, presided over by Justice Madhav Jamdar, heard a bail application filed by a 43-year-old teacher accused of stalking and sexually harassing a 14-year-old student. The man, who served as the student's class teacher and also taught her English, allegedly made 2-4 phone calls to the victim every day between December 20, 2022, and January 8, 2023. On January 8, 2023, the teacher called the student 9 times. When the victim did not respond to his calls, he sent a threatening message, stating that he would kill himself if she did not speak with him. Subsequently, an FIR was filed on January 8, 2023, following this incident.
14. [Justice Patel – IT Rules] Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court, while striking down the 2023 IT Rules Amendment that established a Fact Check Unit (FCU), questioned why the government should enjoy more protection from deep fakes than cricketers or celebrities. “I see no reason why deepfakes about the Central Government should enjoy any greater protection than deepfakes about film actors or cricket stars. Clearly, this is invidious class legislation not permissible classification,” Justice Patel said. Justice Patel, while striking down the rule, said that the government possesses the biggest megaphone and the loudest voice, and if there's one entity that does not need such protection, it is the government. Furthermore, he said that if the material or content in print is not subject to FCU, there is no reason why if the same material is on online is susceptible to fakeness, falsity or misleading.
15. [Justice Gokhale – IT Rules] Justice Neela Gokhale of the Bombay High Court, in her dissenting opinion, ruled in favor of the 2023 IT Rules Amendment that established a Fact Check Unit (FCU). She emphasized that there should not be bias against the members of the FCU solely because they are government nominees. “..alleging bias against the members of the FCU only for the reason of their being government appointees is unfair and this by itself does not divest their character as independent persons,” Justice Gokhale said. Justice Neela Gokhale stated that the rule is not violative of Article 14, considering the FCU comprises government officials, which makes the government the final arbiter in its own cause. She added that the rights of a user or any aggrieved person to approach the grievance redressal mechanism and the appellate authority are contemplated under the Rules. The final arbiter of the issue is a jurisdictionally competent court. Justice Gokhale mentioned that the manner of FCU's functioning in ascertaining fake, false, or misleading information is yet unknown. In case of any actual bias exhibited by the FCU, recourse to the courts of law is always open to the aggrieved person. Therefore, a challenge to potential abuse by the FCU based on apprehension is not maintainable, and to that extent, it is premature.
Please Login or Register
