Read Time: 23 minutes
1. [POCSO] The Bombay High Court recently observed that child victims under the POCSO Act and their parents have not shown interest in participating in the appeal and sentence suspension proceedings. “They are required to travel from remote places to attend the Court and thus are put to financial loss as well. Most of them belong to economically weaker section because in almost all cases, they seek legal aid. None of them, in my tenure so far, have shown interest to participate in the proceedings. Thus, by converting their ‘entitlement to participate’ into ‘obligation to participate’ they have been put to further sufferance and hardship,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of the high court at Nagpur comprising Justice Anil Pansare was hearing an application filed by a POCSO convict under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that sought the suspension of his sentence pending appeal before the high court.
Bench: Justice Anil Pansare.
Case title: Rohit Bhagat vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [Father & Mother Not Enemy of Child] The Bombay High Court (HC) recently observed that the welfare of a child is of paramount importance and that the father and mother cannot be branded as the enemy of the child. “For a substantial period of time, the custody of the child should be with the mother. But the father cannot be deprived of visitation rights and weekend custody. It is settled law that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance, while considering the issue relating to child custody and visitation rights. Father or mother cannot be branded as enemy of child,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of the high court at Goa comprising Justice Prakash Naik was hearing a petition filed by the father challenging the District Court’s order denying him visitation rights and weekend custody of his minor son. The father had obtained an order for visitation rights through a separate petition in the high court, but it was not being implemented by the mother.
Bench: Prakash Naik.
Case title: ABC vs XYZ
3. [Social Media & PIL] The Bombay High Court has observed that information forming part of pleadings in a Public Interest Litigation cannot be sourced from social media. The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing a public interest litigation file by advocate Ajitsingh Ghorbade. The petition sought a direction to be issued to the Maharashtra Government to deploy more police officials for people visiting different water bodies in Maharashtra. The PIL stated that every year 1500-2000 lives are lost due to unsafe water bodies and waterfalls every year. The division bench questioned Advocate Mahindra Pandey, representing the petitioner, about the source of the collected data. Pandey admitted that he had gathered information from social media and newspapers. In response, the bench expressed displeasure, stating that the petitioner was wasting judicial time. "Information gathered from social media cannot be part of pleadings in a PIL. You cannot be so irresponsible while filing PILs. You are wasting judicial time. Somebody goes for a picnic and accidentally drowns, therefore a PIL? Someone drowns in an accident, how is it a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21," the court said.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Ajitsingh Ghorbade vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
4. [State Council For Senior Citizens] On Wednesday, the Bombay High Court strongly criticized the Maharashtra State Government for not having a proper District Committee and State Council under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing a PIL filed by Nilofer Amlani seeking directions regarding the 2010 Rules notified by the state Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance for the care and protection of senior citizens. The petition sought proper guidelines for the licensing and registration of old-age homes across Maharashtra. The division bench found that even though the rules were framed in 2010, 13 years had lapsed, and the state council and district committee were non-functional. “Aap court ki baat maante nahi, kam se kam Parliament ki baat toh suno! (You don’t listen to the court, at least listen to the Parliament),” the bench said.
Case title: Nilofar Amlani vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
5. [Expansion of Pune Airport] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to hear a Public Interest Litigation seeking the expansion of Pune airport. The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, heard a PIL filed by Aniruddha Deshpande, who sought the expansion of the airport. Deshpande informed the bench that he had received information that the authorities had acquired land for the expansion. Deshpande submitted that he had made representations before the authorities to expedite the process, but they were not considered. Therefore, he approached the high court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to act. However, the division bench stated that the decision of where to have an airport is the prerogative of the executive. “Had you made statutory representation and authority were not deciding then we could consider. Where to have and not to have an airport is prerogative of the executive. It's an exclusive realm of executives. There is no violation of statutory right, fundamental right and constitutional right then how can we issue such directions?” the bench said.
Case title: Aniruddha Deshpande vs Union of India & Ors.
6. [Bhushan Kumar] The Bombay High Court on Thursday allowed T-Series Managing Director Bhushan Kumar to withdraw his petition seeking to quash the rape case filed against him after the magistrate court accepted the closure report filed by the police. Bhushan Kumar, the son of Gulshan Kumar, has been accused of repeatedly raping a woman under the pretext of offering her a job within his music record label and film production company. The woman has claimed that she was subjected to multiple instances of sexual assault from September 2017 to August 2022. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar, was informed by Advocate Niranjan Mudrangi that the Andheri Court had accepted the closure report filed in November 2023. A B Summary Report (Closure Report) is filed by the police after it is found that there is no prima facie evidence or the FIR was filed maliciously. The bench, upon being informed, accepted the statement made by Mudrangi and allowed the petition to be withdrawn.
Bench: Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Bhushan Kumar vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
7. [Minor’s Testimony] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the testimony of the minor rape victim cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there was a delay in lodging an FIR. “In our conservative society, people remain back footed to lodge a report of sexual assault, which has many repercussions. Therefore, merely on the ground of delay, the reliable testimony of the victim cannot be discarded,” the order stated. In its order dated October 4, 2023, a division bench of the high court at Nagpur comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes stated that the mental condition of the victim should be considered, especially, when the head of the family is the culprit. “FIR itself bears explanation that out of fear of defamation, the report was not lodged initially. One should imagine the mental condition of the victim when the protector and head of the family itself is a culprit,” the order reads. The high court was hearing an appeal against the order of the Special POCSO Court convicting a father of sexually assaulting his own minor daughter.
Bench: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes.
Case title: Shekhar Dhakhate vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
8. [SEBI] The Bombay High Court has recently said that the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is a public body which is required to act in the public interest. “There has been persistent non-compliance of such orders passed by the Court, despite the Special Leave Petition of the SEBI being rejected, is too far to be imagined nay totally unacceptable. SEBI is a public body, it is required to act in public interest, it needs to comply with the orders passed by this Court,” the high court said. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain, was hearing a petition filed by minority shareholders who had made several complaints against Bharat Nidhi Limited. The high court had directed SEBI to provide the investigation documents to the minority shareholders. SEBI had challenged the order of the high court before the Supreme Court, and it was dismissed. The regulatory body had issued a show-cause notice to the company. However, SEBI had passed a settlement order, which was subsequently withdrawn. The minority shareholders contended that the investigation done by SEBI was a farce, and they were not provided with any investigation details or documents.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain.
Case title: Ashok Dayabhai Shah And Ors vs SEBI & Ors.
9. [Undertrial prisoners] The Bombay High Court recently stated that undertrial prisoners should be produced before the court through video conferencing, as their physical production involves a cumbersome procedure that consumes time, resources, and money. “At various stages it may not be necessary to produce the accused, as production of the accused physically in Court is a cumbersome procedure, which consumes time, money and resources. In absence of availability of suffcient number of staff to carry the prisoners to the Court to be represented for various stages, the number necessarily has to be minimised for several reasons like security, non-availablity of adequate staff, distance to be covered in traveling as well as adhering to the norms prescribed by the Jail Manual, when the prisoners are to be removed from the Jail for the purposes of production before the Court,” the court said. The single-judge bench of the high court presided over by Justice Bharathi Dangre, heard a bail application from Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav, represented by Advocate Vinod Kashid. The applicant claimed that his bail application had been adjourned 23 times by the trial court because he was not produced before the court either physically or virtually. The high court appointed Advocate Satyavrat Joshi as amicus and instructed him to submit a report after visiting Arthur Road Jail and Taloja Jail along with Assistant Public Prosecutor Y M Nakhwa.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre.
Case title: Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
