Latest Bombay High Court News | Top Bombay High Court News Headlines Today | Today India news | Breaking Bombay High Court News Today | English Bombay High Court News Headlines - TheDailyGuardian

High Court Demands Action After Safari Vehicles Obstruct Tigress in Umred-Pauni-Karhandla Sanctuary

January 7, 2025, 2:07 pm

The Bombay High Court has strongly criticized an incident involving safari vehicles carrying tourists that obstructed the movement of a tigress and her cubs. This occurred in Maharashtra’s Umred-Pauni-Karhandla Sanctuary on New Year’s Eve. On January 6, 2025, Justices Nitin Sambre and Vrushali Joshi of the HC’s Nagpur bench issued a notice to the state’s principal chief conservator of forests. They are seeking a detailed affidavit on actions taken and preventive measures.

The bench will hear the plea on January 8, 2025.

Safari vehicles crowded around the tigress, identified as F-2, and her five cubs on both sides of the road. This was in the sanctuary’s buffer zone in viral videos from December 31, 2024. Tourists captured photos and videos of the animals.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Nagpur Today News (@nagpur_today)

Taking suo motu cognizance of the videos and news reports, the state forest department on January 6 suspended four drivers and guides involved in the incident for three months. Authorities imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the gypsy SUV drivers and fined nature guides ₹1,000 each. They registered cases against them under relevant sections of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

Stricter Wildlife Protection Measures

Pench Tiger Reserve (Nagpur) deputy director Prabhu Nath Shukla stated that tourists violated sanctuary rules by blocking the path of the tigress F-2 and her cubs. This incident involved multiple safari vehicles at Gothangaon in Kuhi wildlife range. Consequently, tourists involved in the incident have been permanently banned from future visits to the sanctuary.

Moreover, the deputy director of Bor Tiger Reserve heads a committee to recommend measures to prevent similar incidents. Furthermore, authorities have instructed field officers and staff to increase regular patrolling along safari routes. Additionally, special meetings and workshops are being organized for nature guides and gypsy drivers to raise awareness and sensitivity towards ecotourism.

The Bombay High Court and the state forest department aim to ensure the protection of wildlife in the Umred-Pauni-Karhandla Sanctuary through these actions. They also aim to promote responsible tourism practices by implementing these measures.

Hotel Booking And Entry In Room Doesn’t Mean Consent For Sexual Activity: Bombay High Court Say

November 11, 2024, 9:40 am

In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court at Goa ruled that a woman’s act of booking a hotel room with a man cannot be construed as consent for sexual activity. This ruling came after the court quashed a decision by the Margao Trial Court, which had discharged Gulsher Ahmed from a rape charge. The Trial Court had previously concluded that the woman’s involvement in booking the room with the accused implied consent to sex, a view the Bombay High Court found to be legally incorrect.

The Incident and Legal Proceedings

The case dates back to March 3, 2020, when Gulsher Ahmed allegedly lured the victim into a hotel with the promise of securing a job abroad. Upon entering the hotel room, the victim was reportedly threatened and raped by the accused. She managed to escape the ordeal and immediately reported the crime to the police. Hotel staff supported her account, further undermining Ahmed’s defense.

Court’s Emphasis on Distinguishing Between Presence and Consent

Justice Bharat Deshpande, in his September 3 ruling, highlighted the distinction between the woman’s physical presence in the hotel room and her consent to the sexual act. The judge emphasized that the Margao Trial Court had conflated the two issues, which led to a mistaken judgment. The ruling is a critical affirmation of the legal principle that physical presence in a location, in this case, a hotel room, does not imply consent to sexual activity.

This ruling adds weight to ongoing discussions around consent and the need for clear legal standards that protect individuals from sexual violence. It also marks a step forward in upholding the importance of consent in legal cases of sexual assault.

Chhota Rajan’s Life Sentence Suspended by Bombay High Court

October 23, 2024, 1:44 pm

The Bombay High Court approved bail on Wednesday for gangster Chhota Rajan by suspending his life sentence connected to the murder of hotelier Jaya Shetty in Mumbai in 2001. The ruling came from a division bench made up of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan. They required Rajan to post a bond of ₹1 lakh to secure his bail. However, it’s important to note that Rajan will remain in custody due to his involvement in other criminal cases.

Background of the Case

Earlier this year, in May, a special court convicted Chhota Rajan for Jaya Shetty’s murder and sentenced him to life in prison. Following this verdict, Rajan appealed to the Bombay High Court, asking for his sentence to be suspended and for bail while his appeal was considered.

Who Was Jaya Shetty?

Jaya Shetty owned the Golden Crown hotel in Gamdevi, central Mumbai, and was shot dead by two suspected members of Chhota Rajan’s gang on May 4, 2001. Investigations revealed that Shetty had received extortion demands from Hemant Pujari, a gang associate, and was killed after he failed to pay the money.

Currently, Chhota Rajan is serving a life sentence for the murder of crime reporter J Dey and is held at Tihar Jail in Delhi.

Acquittal in Dr. Datta Samant’s Murder Case

In a different matter, a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court cleared Chhota Rajan last year of any involvement in the murder of Dr. Datta Samant, a prominent trade union leader who was shot in 1997. The court’s decision to acquit him was due to a lack of solid evidence, stating, “In this case, no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused in respect of conspiracy to commit the murder of Dr. Datta Samant.”

Dr. Samant was killed on January 16, 1997, by four gunmen on Padmavati Road while he was driving from Powai to Ghatkopar in his jeep. While three people were convicted for his murder in 2000, Chhota Rajan was identified as a wanted suspect. He was apprehended in 2015 in Indonesia and brought back to Mumbai, where all his pending cases were assigned to the CBI.

Bombay HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To School Officials In Badlapur Sexual Assault Case

October 1, 2024, 5:17 pm

The chairman and secretary of a school in Badlapur, Maharashtra, where two young girls were reportedly sexually molested by a now-deceased male attendant, Akshay Shinde, were denied pre-arrest bail on Tuesday by the Bombay High Court, in a major decision.

Court Highlights Accountability

Justice RN Laddha, presiding over the case, emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, stating that there is prima facie evidence indicating that the accused were aware of the incident prior to August 16 but failed to take appropriate action. “The victims are minors. The trauma that they have endured can profoundly affect their adolescent years, leaving them with lasting psychological scars,” the court remarked. The judge noted that the accused, responsible for managing the school, had knowledge of the complaints raised by the victims’ parents yet chose not to report the incident to the authorities.

Delay Attributed to Negligence

The court further stated that the delay in filing the sexual assault case was “primarily due to the applicants’ negligence for reasons known only to them.” It reiterated that there is a legal obligation for individuals to report any offense they are aware of. Notably, the court also pointed out the absence of CCTV footage from the day of the incident, raising concerns about the management’s response to the situation.

Missing Accused and Police Criticism

In a separate development, the Bombay High Court reprimanded the Special Investigation Team (SIT) for its failure to apprehend two trustees of the school who are accused in the case. During the hearing, a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan questioned the police’s efficiency, asking, “The police goes to any extent to nab an accused. How come they have not been able to apprehend these two? Are they waiting for them to get anticipatory bail?”

The Advocate General, Birendra Saraf, assured the court that the police were taking all necessary steps to locate the absconding accused. The court has scheduled the next hearing for October 23, as the investigation continues into this troubling case involving the safety of minors.

Kangana Ranaut’s Emergency Faces Major Controversy: Key Objections Explained

September 4, 2024, 1:28 pm

Kangana Ranaut’s film Emergency is facing controversy following objections from Sikh organizations, which claim the film misrepresents the Sikh community and distorts historical facts. The film, which portrays the 1975 Emergency period under Indira Gandhi’s government and touches on related events like Gandhi’s assassination and the Khalistan movement, has had its Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) clearance delayed due to threats received by board members.

Film Overview

Emergency, starring Kangana Ranaut and co-starring Anupam Kher, Shreyas Talpade, and Milind Soman, dramatizes the 21-month period of Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi. The film also covers sensitive topics, including the Khalistan movement led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Written by Ranaut and co-produced by Zee Studios and her Manikarnika Films, the film was initially set for release last year but faced delays due to elections, with a new release date of September 6 now uncertain due to pending Censor Board approval.

Controversy and Objections

The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), which oversees Sikh religious institutions, has issued a legal notice to the film’s producers, alleging misrepresentation of Sikh history. The SGPC, along with Akal Takht, has demanded a ban on the film, claiming its trailer contains “anti-Sikh” content that has deeply offended the Sikh community.

SGPC General Secretary Gurcharan Singh Grewal stated that the Censor Board’s halt on the film’s release is a positive step, emphasizing the need for harmony and accurate representation in media.

Kangana Ranaut’s Response

Kangana Ranaut has expressed frustration over alleged pressures to exclude depictions of sensitive historical events from the film. She questioned the restrictions on showing such events, contrasting this with the freedom to depict violence and controversial topics on OTT platforms. Ranaut criticized what she sees as selective censorship, arguing that nationalist viewpoints are unfairly targeted.

Legal Action

The film’s co-producer, Zee Entertainment Enterprises, has taken legal action against the CBFC, seeking a directive for the release of the film. Zee Entertainment argues that the Censor Board’s withholding of the certification is arbitrary and illegal. The company claims that the board’s decision to delay certification due to unrest is inappropriate and that the CBFC should focus solely on censorship rather than law and order concerns.

The Bombay High Court is currently reviewing the petition, which contends that the CBFC’s actions are unjust and impediment to the film’s release.

Bombay High Court Orders Maharashtra to Ban Plaster of Paris Ganesh Idols for Cleaner Ganpati Visarjan

August 31, 2024, 1:42 am

In an effort to address water pollution during the Ganpati visarjan (immersion) period, the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to impose strict conditions on Ganeshotsav organizers. The court has mandated that organizers must adhere to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines and avoid using Ganesh idols made of Plaster of Paris (PoP).

The court’s decision comes after a plea from the association of idol manufacturers, which sought intervention on the matter. While a complete ban on PoP idols has not yet been enforced, the court emphasized the need for extraordinary measures to address the pollution issue. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar stated that the use of PoP idols would be banned, citing the importance of adhering to existing environmental guidelines.

The bench noted that despite the CPCB guidelines being in place since May 2020 and various efforts by Municipal Corporations and the state government, the use of PoP in idols had not ceased. The court criticized the lack of enforcement measures, such as fines, and acknowledged that while immediate implementation might impact artisans’ livelihoods, the guidelines had been in effect for a considerable time.

The court’s order requires that Sarvajanik Mandals (public celebration groups) seeking permission for this year’s Ganesh festival be informed that they must comply with the guidelines and avoid using PoP idols. For those who have already received permission, an additional condition will be imposed to ensure compliance. The decision aims to mitigate environmental damage and uphold the CPCB’s environmental protection standards.

Survey on Sexual Predators Study

August 26, 2024, 1:01 am

Recently, the Bombay High Court expressed grave concerns about school safety, emphasizing that discussions on the right to education become meaningless if schools aren’t secure. Justice Mohite-Dere highlighted the alarming issue, noting, “Even four-year-old girls are not being spared.” The remarks came during hearings on the alleged sexual assault of two minors at a Badlapur school. The court criticized the Badlapur police for delays in recording statements, underscoring the urgency of addressing these serious safety lapses to ensure the protection of students and uphold their right to a safe learning environment.

69% of surveyed feel safe on their campus.

Here is the survey:

Q-1. Do you feel safe on your campus?

Q-2. Do you know any woman or man who has been a victim of sexual crime?

Q-3. Have you ever tried to help a woman in distress?

Q-4. If you were informed that someone on campus was harassing or threatening another person, would you report it?

Bombay High Court Releases 18-Year-Old Convict in 2013 Fatal Motorcycle Accident

July 16, 2024, 1:10 pm

The Bombay High Court has ordered the release of an 18-year-old convict involved in a fatal motorcycle accident in April 2013, where a woman lost her life. Upholding his conviction for causing death by negligence, the court invoked the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasizing the convict’s young age at the time and his potential for rehabilitation and a promising future.

Justice Sanjay Mehare, presiding over a single bench, noted the circumstances of the incident. The convict had been riding his new motorcycle for the first time when the accident occurred, resulting in the woman sustaining fatal injuries. Despite the tragedy, the court considered the peculiar circumstances, stating that the convict, under normal circumstances, wouldn’t have caused such an accident.

See Post:

Bombay High Court Releases 18-Yr-Old Who Mowed Down Woman From His Bike, Cites His ‘Young Age’ And ‘Bright Future’ | ⁦@NarsiBenwal⁩https://t.co/O9TrAcbPKI

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 15, 2024

“In the ordinary course, he had no reason to take the vehicle away from the road and cause an accident. His age and the way in which the accident happened are the peculiar facts to be considered in this case. He has a bright future,” the court observed.

This decision has sparked discussions regarding the balance between justice and rehabilitation, especially concerning young offenders and the circumstances of their crimes.

Pune Porsche Case: Isn’t It Confinement If Juvenile Is Kept in Custody After Bail, Asks HC

June 21, 2024, 4:54 pm

Marking the latest development in the Pune Porsche crash case, the Bombay High Court on Friday asked if it amounted to confinement when the accused juvenile was granted bail but was taken back into custody and kept in an observation home. On May 19, the 17-year-old, in an intoxicated state, had hit a two-wheeler driven by software engineers Anish Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. While the teen was arrested within hours, he was released shortly after, triggering a national uproar.

In the latest development, a division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande in the Bombay HC argued that although the crash was unfortunate, the child had suffered too. “Two people have lost their lives. There was trauma, but the child was also in trauma,” they said. Furthermore, they asked the police under which provision of law the order granting bail to the minor accused in the Porsche accident case was amended and how he has been kept in “confinement”.

This comes just two days after the accused teen’s aunt lodged a petition in the Bombay HC, demanding his immediate release, as his detention is illegal. The petitioner filed this case under Habeas corpus, accusing Pune police of taking advantage of the due process and abusing the rule of Law. She also claimed that her nephew’s continued detention completely contravenes provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Karan Johar Moves Bombay High Court Against Unauthorized Use Of His Name In Film Title

June 13, 2024, 2:26 pm

Filmmaker Karan Johar has taken legal action against the makers of an upcoming film titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’, set to release on Friday. Johar has moved to the Bombay High Court, claiming that the use of his name in the film’s title is unauthorized and inappropriate. He has filed a plea seeking an urgent stay on the film’s release.

The plea filed by Johar demands a restriction and restraining order on the film’s release, targeting producers IndiaPride Advisory, Sanjay Singh, and writer-director Bablu Singh. The Bombay High Court has agreed to hear the plea on Thursday, June 13.

The basis of Johar’s plea is the alleged violation of his personal rights, privacy, and publicity. The plea highlights that the use of his name in the film’s trailers and posters has caused and continues to cause irreparable damage to his goodwill and reputation. The court documents state, “These trailers and posters have caused and are continuing to cause irreparable loss and damage to the goodwill and reputation of Johar. Further, such a release of the film with the title containing his brand name ‘Karan Johar,’ together or in parts, will cause irreparable loss and damage to the goodwill and reputation which he has gained after investing huge amounts of time, effort, and money.”

On the professional front, Karan Johar’s last directorial venture was ‘Rocky Aur Rani Kii Prem Kahaani’. He recently produced ‘Mr and Mrs Mahi’ and is now preparing for the release of ‘Kill’.

Jet Airway Owner’s Wife Anita Goyal Passes Away Due To Cancer

May 16, 2024, 1:37 pm

After her prolonged battle with Cancer, the wife of Jet Airways founder Anita Goyal (70) has passed away this Thursday morning.

As per the reports, she passed away at around 3 am at Mumbai’s residence, and over the past few months, her health continued to decline as she was battling with third-stage cancer.

Her funeral will take place in the latter part of Thursday. She is survived by her husband Naresh Goyal and her two children- Namrata and Nivaan Goyal.

As for the career front, she was part of the company’s operations as executive vice president. However, in 2015, she became non-executive vice-president, but she continued to remain part of the board of directors.

Meanwhile, Naresh Goyal, the 75-year-old founder of Jet Airways who has been battling cancer and other health issues, was granted interim bail by the Bombay High Court to be with his ailing wife.

Previously, his lawyer, Harish Salve, had appealed to the high court on humanitarian grounds, emphasizing the businessman’s frail health and his wife’s illness.

Salve also revealed that the Jet airways founder had chosen chemotherapy over other invasive surgery to support his wife during her treatment.

Why Did Naresh Goyal Go To Jail?

On 1st September 2023, Jet airways owner Naresh Goyal was arrested in connection to money-laundering.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) made an accusation on Goyal for borrowing money from a consortium of 10 banks to manage his daily expenses, even though he owes Rs 6,000 crore to these banks.

According to the Enforcement Directorate, approximately ₹1,152 crore was diverted under the guise of consultancy and professional fees. Additionally, ₹2,547.83 crore was allocated to the sister company, Jet Lite Limited, for the clearance of its loan.

Recently in February 2024, his request for interim bail on medical grounds was denied.

Bombay High Court orders premature release of gangster Arun Gawli

April 5, 2024, 3:51 pm

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has ordered the premature release of gangster-turned-politician Arun Gawli, who was serving his life sentence in Nagpur Central Jail.

The court pronounced the judgment on Friday, “holding that Arun Gawli would be entitled to the benefit of 2006 policy and he cannot be excluded from the benefit of policy by resorting to the rule of ejusdem generis (of the same kind).”

The state has been directed to make a decision on his release within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

Gawli’s application was rejected by the respondents on the count that the state government had come up with a fresh notification dated December 1, 2015, by which a convict under the MCOCA Act was held entitled to the benefit of the said policy decision.

Advocate Nagman Ali, appearing for Arun Gawli, had argued that Gawli would be entitled to the benefit of the 2006 notification because he was convicted in 2009, and therefore, a subsequent notification that came into force in 2015 would not be applicable to him.

The state had registered the petition filed by Gawli on the ground that the 2015 notification specifically excludes convicts under the MCOCA Act from the benefit of the said policy.

It was further submitted that even the 2006 notification makes it clear that convicts under acts like the NDPS Act, TADA act, MPDA, etc., are not entitled to the benefit of the policy.

It was contended that the terminology that is used is ‘et cetera’, and therefore even a conviction under the MCOCA Act would not be entitled to the benefit of the 2006 policy by taking resort to the rule of ‘ejusdem generis’ (of the same kind).

In August 2012, a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court sentenced Gawli to life imprisonment for the murder of a Shiv Sena corporator in March 2008.

The conviction was later upheld by the Bombay High Court.

Fundamental Right To Travel Abroad, Authority Can’t Cite Ongoing Dispute Over Applicant’s Address To Deny Passport: Bombay High Court

December 28, 2023, 6:41 am

While ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to the fundamental right to travel abroad, the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal & 2 Ors vs The Union of India & 2 Ors in Writ Petition No. 4917 of 2022 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2023:BHC-OS:15152-DB in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction that was pronounced as recently as on December 15, 2023 minced just no words absolutely to hold that, “A person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport.” It must be noted that the Passport Authority had refused to renew the passports of Rajinder Kaur and her two sons on the ground that there was an objection raised by the woman’s brother-in-law Gurvinder Chanan Singh Layal over the address mentioned by them in their passport applications. It was made clear by the Bombay High Court that authority can’t cite ongoing dispute over applicant’s address to deny passport. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla for a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice AS Chandurkar and himself sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The Petitioners have filed the present Petition seeking quashing and setting aside of two Orders dated 22nd December 2020 and one Order dated 23rd December 2020 issued by Respondent No.2 refusing to renew the passports of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have also sought a Writ of Mandamus ordering and directing Respondent No.2 to renew the passports of the Petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is the mother of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The Respondent No.3 is the brother-in-law of Petitioner No.1 and the uncle of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.”

As it turned out, the Division Bench then enunciates in para 3 that, “Since the Petitioners’ respective passports had expired, they had applied for renewal of their passports. Respondent No.2, by two Orders dated 22nd December 2020 in the case of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.3 respectively, and by one Order dated 23rd December 2020 in the case of Petitioner No.2, refused to renew the passports of the Petitioners. The reason given in all the said three Orders was the same, namely, that the address given by the Petitioners in their Applications for renewal of passports was of a room standing in the name of Respondent No.3, and as there was a property dispute in respect of the said room, Respondent No.3 has raised an objection to the Petitioners getting a passport showing the said address.”

As things stand, the Division Bench then mentions in para 4 that, “The Petitioners have challenged the aforesaid Orders of Respondent No.2 on the ground that the right to issuance/renewal of a passport is a fundamental right guaranteed to the Petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and by refusing to renew the passports of the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 had acted arbitrarily and beyond jurisdiction. The Petitioners have submitted that renewal of their passports cannot be refused on the said ground. The Petitioners have also submitted that Respondent No.2 ignored the fact that earlier passports have been issued to Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at the very same address. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.”

As we see, the Division Bench points out in para 5 that, “Before we deal with the merits of the case, we will deal with the issue of maintainability of this Petition raised on behalf of Respondent No.3. It is the case of Respondent No.3 that Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 (“the Passports Act”) provides for an Appeal against such an order of refusal to renew a passport. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have an equally efficacious alternate remedy and therefore this Writ Petition ought not to be entertained. In support of this submission, Respondent No.3 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Radha Krishan Industries v/ State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 1 and in particular to paragraph 27 of the said judgment which reads as under:-

“27. The Principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.”

It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench clearly states in para 6 that, “We are unable to accept the above mentioned submission of Respondent No.3. A reading of paragraph 27 of the said judgement, on which Respondent No.3 has placed reliance, clearly states that an alternate remedy, by itself, does not divest the High Court of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in an appropriate case, though ordinarily a Writ Petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. Further, paragraph 27 of the said judgement also lists certain exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy, one of which is that if a Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of fundamental right protected by Part-III of the Constitution of India. Another exception is that if the order challenged is without jurisdiction.”

Quite significantly, the Division Bench then propounds in para 7 that, “In the present case, the Petitioners have challenged the refusal by Respondent No.2 to renew their passports and have sought a Writ of Mandamus ordering and directing Respondent No.2 to renew their passports. Since the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, it is well settled that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also well settled that such a procedure must not be arbitrary or fanciful or oppressive, as, otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Since the Petitioners have filed the present Petition to enforce the fundamental right to travel abroad, which is guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and have challenged the said Orders refusing renewal of passport to them as being without jurisdiction, the present Petition clearly falls within the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the very judgment referred to by Respondent No.3. For these reasons, in our view, this Petition is maintainable.”

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 8 that, “Coming to the merits of the present case, as held hereinabove, it is settled law that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is obvious that no person can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure established by law. The right to travel abroad is regulated by the procedure established by the Passports Act and the Passports Rules, 1980 (“the Passports Rules”). Section 6 of the Passports Act provides for the grounds on which the Passports Authorities can refuse to issue or renew a passport. Section 6 of the Passports Act reads as under:-

“6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. Etc.-
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and no other ground, namely: –
(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;

(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;

(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: –

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.”

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 9 that, “A reading of the grounds given in Section 6 of the Passports Act clearly shows that the ground mentioned by Respondent No.3 in the impugned orders dated 22nd December 2020 and 23rd December 2020 is not found in Section 6 of the Passports Act. In these circumstances, in our view, by refusing to renew the passports of the Petitioners on the ground mentioned in the said Orders, Respondent No.2 has acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction.”

Most significantly, the Division Bench mandates in para 10 that, “Even otherwise, in our view, a person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport. This is more so if, like in the case of the Petitioners, the person actually resides at the said address, and, as in the case of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, earlier passports have also been issued containing the same address. For this reason also, we are of the view that the ground mentioned by Respondent No.2 for refusing to renew the passports of the Petitioners is totally arbitrary and is liable to be quashed and set aside.”

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 11 that, “Further, Respondent No.2 will have to be directed to issue passports to the Petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act and the Passports Rules without going into the merits of the objection as raised by Respondent No.3.”

For clarity’s sake, the Division Bench clarifies in para 12 that, “In our view, the rights of Respondent No.3 to the property mentioned in the said applications, i.e., Room No. 339, Building No.22, MNB Colony, Sardar Nagar 4, Sion, Koliwada, Mumbai-400 037 (“the said property”) can be protected by clarifying that the reference to the said property as the address of the Petitioners in the passports issued to the Petitioners would not, by itself, confer on them any right in respect of the said property and such inclusion would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Respondent No.3 in other pending proceedings.”

Finally, the Division Bench concludes by holding in para 13 that, “In the aforesaid circumstances, and for all the reasons given hereinabove, we pass the following orders:-

A. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue passports to the Petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act and the Passports Rules, without going into the merits of the objection as raised by Respondent No.3. The same be done within a period of four weeks from today.

B. Needless to state that indication of the Petitioners’ address in the passport would not, by itself, confer on them any right in respect of the said property mentioned therein, and such inclusion would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Respondent No.3 in other pending proceedings.

C. Rule is disposed of with aforesaid directions, with no order as to costs.”

In sum, we thus see that the Bombay High Court has made it explicitly clear that right to travel abroad is a fundamental abroad and cited relevant case laws also as discussed hereinabove and so also relevant provisions as hereinabove mentioned. It is also made clear that the authorities can’t cite ongoing dispute over applicant’s address to deny passport. No denying it!

Bombay High Court Refused Temporary Bail To Nawab Malik On Medical Grounds In Money Laundering Case

July 14, 2023, 10:16 am

The Bombay High Court in the case Nawab Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement observed and has refused to grant temporary bail to the former Maharashtra Cabinet Minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik in the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case.

The bench headed by Justice Anuja Prabhudessai passed the said order.

In the present case, the bail plea was moved by Malik wherein he seeks on the ground that one of his kidneys has failed and the other is functioning only at 60 percent capacity and the same is deteriorating further.

As per the plea moved by Malik, he had been suffering from kidney problem before the arrest of Malik in February 2022 which got aggravated after the arrest of him and it is affecting other organs as well.

Therefore, the bail application was opposed by the Enforcement Directorate wherein it is argued that many people survive with one kidney.

Further, it has been stated in the medical reports that kidney was functioning at 60% of its capacity, hence bail on medical grounds could not be invoked in the case of Malik’s.

However, It being the case of Enforcement Directorate that Malik connived with D-gang members i.e., Haseena Parker (late), the driver of her Salim Patel (late) and Sardar Khan (the 1993 bomb blast convict), and the usurped one Munira Plumber’s 3-acre ancestral property situated in Kurla for a pittance despite the ready reckoner rate of the property being amount for Rs 3.54 crore between 2003-2005.

The Enforcement Directorate in the case observed and has also arrested Malik wherein it is alleged before a special PMLA court accusing him of money laundering under section 3 and section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Malik is currently in judicial custody in the private hospital.

Bombay High Court Directed State To Report On Appointment And Performance Of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers

July 14, 2023, 10:10 am

The Bombay High Court in the case Child Marriage Prohibition Committee and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors observed and has directed the State Government for submitting information with regards to the appointment and performance of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers in the State.

The Division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing the matter wherein the Public Interest Litigation filed by an NGO and some social activists seeking effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act, 2006.

The court in the case observed and has directed the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, or a representative vetted by the Secretary, for filing an additional affidavit in order to provide the following information’s:
The number of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, CMPOs who are appointed by the State Government across Maharashtra.

Weather it has been submitted by the officers the periodical returns and statistics on child marriages to the State Government, as it is mandated under section 16 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Child Marriage Rules, 2022.

The Details of any disciplinary actions which are taken against CMPOs who have failed to perform their duties.

The Affidavit filed by the State in June, 2022 from 2018 to 2021, stated that the authorities stopped 1767 child marriages.

The court in the case observed and has noted that the affidavit filed does not explain how these figures were arrived at. Further, the affidavit filed was silent on the number of CMPOs in the state.

The court stated that as per Rules of 2022, duties of the CMPOs include preventing child marriages, collecting evidence, advising residents, creating awareness, and sensitizing the community. Therefore, the CMPOs have the authority to enter any premises where a child marriage is suspected, demand documents, and conduct inquiries, which must be completed within the period of three months.

The court stated that as per the 2022 Rules the CMPOs must report on their actions under the Act and Rules in the first week of every month. Failure to fulfil their duties shall result in disciplinary action against the CMPOs.

The court while considering the important role to be performed by the Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, it is necessary that adequate Child Marriage Prohibition Officers are appointed and strict supervision is being conducted with regards to the performance of their duties.

The present PIL was filed by Advocate Ajinkya Udane, wherein seeking Rules to be framed by the State Government as per section 19 of the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act, 2006.
It has been stated by the Government Pleader, PP Kakade that it has been notified by the government the Maharashtra Prohibition of Child Marriage Rules, 2022.

The PIL filed seeks the committee with representatives from the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Social Justice, Ministry of Education, Director General of Police, State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, State Human Rights Commission, State Commission for Women, and NGOs to frame a standard operating procedure for implementing the Act of 2006.

Further, the petitioner in the plea seeks requested the High Court to frame guidelines to make the Act of 2006 more effective.

Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on August 02, 2023.

Justice Ramesh D Dhanuka becomes Chief Justice of Bombay High Court

May 28, 2023, 2:25 pm

Justice Ramesh Dhanuka sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on Sunday. Maharashtra Governor Ramesh Bais administered the oath of office to Dhanuka at the Raj Bhavan.

For those unversed, Dhanuka, who was born on May 31, 1961. He attended school in Mumbai and later went to University of Bombay, to obtained a Bachelor of Commerce degree. Eventually he got interested in Law and earned a degree in the same.

In 1985, he began practicing law at the Bombay High Court in the chambers of Justice DR Dhanuka (Retired), and remained there until his appointment as High Court Judge of Bombay in 1990.

He has been on the senior counsel panel of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for several years and has appeared in a large number of matters in the Bombay High Court on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. On January 23, 2012, Dhanuka was appointed as an additional Judge of the Bombay High Court.

Bombay court extends relief to Rakhi Sawant till 1 February in Sherlyn Chopra case

January 25, 2023, 4:30 pm

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday extends relief to Rakhi Sawant till 1 February in the case filed by Sherlyn Chopra. Justice MS Karnik extended an order of no coercive action against Rakhi Sawant till February 1.

SC refuses to interfere with Bombay HC order granting bail to Anil Deshmukh

January 23, 2023, 4:45 pm

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court order granting bail to former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh in a case registered by CBI. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala declined the plea of CBI filed against the High Court order which had granted bail to Deshmukh.

The Central Bureau of Investigation approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay of the Bombay High Court’s December 12 order granting bail to Deshmukh in a corruption case where he is accused of extorting money from bar owners and restaurants. The agency claimed in its appeal that the former Maharashtra minister and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader continues to hold high-level political connections and his mere release will dent the confidence of witnesses and jeopardise the trial.

Deshmukh was accused of running an extortion racket within the police force while he was the state home minister and allegedly extorted money from restaurants and bar owners.

ICICI Loan Fraud Case: Bombay High Court grants interim bail to Venugopal Dhoot

January 20, 2023, 12:36 pm

Bombay High Court grants interim bail to Videocon Group Chairman Venugopal Dhoot on Friday in the alleged loan fraud case related to the ICICI Bank.

Earlier on 13 January, Venugopal Dhoot’s lawyer Sandeep Ladda had filed this petition on the same grounds as the Kochhar couple and the Bombay High Court reserved the order on a writ petition.

The Videocon chairman’s advocate further said: “As CBI said, they arrested him because he [Venugopal Dhoot] was not cooperating with the investigation, but it is not the case. Dhoot has always cooperated in the proceedings of the case.”

Seeking Dhoot’s release his lawyer had moved a petition in the Bombay High Court to release Dhoot on medical grounds.

Advocate Ladda mentioned that there is a blockage in his client Venugopal Dhoot’s heart and wants an immediate investigation.

“He even appeared 31 times as and when summons were sent to him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). What could be the reason that it was not the ED but the CBI which has arrested him,” Advocate Ladda said.

Earlier on 10 January in an alleged multi-crore money laundering scam the release of former ICICI Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar accused were released from Arthur Road Jail on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, on 9 January while observing the arrest of the Kochhar couple the court said “not in accordance with the law” and from the judicial custody they have been allowed to release on a cash bail of Rs 1 lakh each.

Moreover, to the Videocon Group six loans were sanctioned worth Rs 1,875 crore between June 2009 and October 2011, CBI found during its preliminary inquiry.

However, in 2012 the agency said that the loans were declared non-performing assets which caused a loss of Rs 1,730 crore to the bank.

Bombay High Court grants interim bail to Venugopal Dhoot

January 20, 2023, 12:07 pm

Bombay High Court grants interim bail to Videocon Group Chairman Venugopal Dhoot in the alleged loan fraud case related to the ICICI Bank.

Venugopal Dhoot files bail plea on same grounds as Kochhar couple

January 13, 2023, 6:29 pm

In the alleged loan fraud case related to the ICICI Bank Videocon Group Chairman Venugopal Dhoot challenged his arrest by CBI and on Friday the Bombay High Court reserved the order on a writ petition.

Venugopal Dhoot’s lawyer Sandeep Ladda had filed this petition on the same grounds as the Kochhar couple.

Seeking Dhoot’s release his lawyer had moved a petition in the Bombay High Court to release Dhoot on medical grounds.

Advocate Ladda mentioned that there is a blockage in his client Venugopal Dhoot’s heart and wants an immediate investigation.

Moreover, to the Videocon Group six loans were sanctioned worth Rs 1,875 crore between June 2009 and October 2011, CBI found during its preliminary inquiry.

However, in 2012 the agency said that the loans were declared non-performing assets which caused a loss of Rs 1,730 crore to the bank.

Venugopal Dhoot files bail plea on same grounds as Kochhar couple

January 13, 2023, 5:10 pm

Bombay High Court grants Johnson & Johnson to sell baby powder

January 11, 2023, 1:44 pm

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday gave a big relief to Johnson & Johnson and granted permission granted to sell baby powder. Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court set aside the order canceling the license of Johnson & Johnson to manufacture baby powder.

Bombay High Court permits Johnson & Johnson to sell baby powder

January 11, 2023, 1:41 pm

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday gave a big relief to Johnson & Johnson and granted permission granted to sell baby powder.

Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court set aside the order canceling the license of Johnson & Johnson to manufacture baby powder.

Earlier on Wednesday the court reserved the petition for orders and said, “What we propose is this. Our view regarding ‘prayer A’ is that rule will have to be made absolute regarding the concerned batches.”

Moreover, within a certain time frame, Justice Patel and Justice SG Dhige a division bench expressed the need for FDA to act swiftly.

“We will say that to act against a batch or full production capacity, you must exercise power reasonably and proportionately. You must act within a time frame because you are dealing with cosmetics, especially drugs. here cannot be delayed for months and years. We will set out that the speed at which you operate will be a factor to be considered, whenever there is a challenge. We are not saying anything so far as the product is concerned.”

The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration decided to cancel the manufacturing license due to low quality in September 2022. FDA requested to cancel the petition as pH levels were found to be higher than the prescribed limit.

However, in 2019 November the samples were collected and in 2021 the first show cause notice was issued and on 15 September 2022 the samples license was canceled.

“You are supposedly the torchbearers and champions of public health …Is this your sense of urgency?” Justice Gautam Patel asked.

After the Bombay High Court orders, four fresh samples were collected and two government and one independent laboratory it was tested. Furthermore, between 5-8, the pH reading should be this.

ICICI Videocon case: Bombay High court to hear Venugopal Dhoot’s plea on 13 January

January 10, 2023, 12:19 pm

In an alleged multi-crore money laundering scam Venugopal Dhoot’s plea will be heard on 13 January by the Bombay High Court. Earlier Tuesday morning former ICICI Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar were released from Arthur Road Jail.

Release of Chanda Kochhar, husband Deepak Kochhar allowed by Bombay HC

January 9, 2023, 12:28 pm

In an alleged multi-crore money laundering scam the release of former ICICI Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar accused has been allowed by the Bombay High Court on Monday.

Meanwhile, while observing the arrest of the Kochhar couple the court said “not in accordance with the law” and from the judicial custody they have been allowed to release on a cash bail of Rs 1 lakh each.

Earlier on 23 December 2022 the Kochhar couple was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Videocon-ICICI loan scam case.

Moreover, to the Videocon Group six loans were sanctioned worth Rs 1,875 crore between June 2009 and October 2011, CBI found during its preliminary inquiry.

However, in 2012 the agency said that the loans were declared non-performing assets which caused a loss of Rs 1,730 crore to the bank.

Furthermore, on 24 December 2022 former Managing Director (MD) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the ICICI bank Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar were produced before a special court of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for carrying forward remand proceedings.

NCP leader Anil Deshmukh released from jail in Mumbai

December 28, 2022, 6:15 pm

Former Maharashtra Home Minister and NCP leader Anil Deshmukh has been released from Arthur Road jail in Mumbai on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, after all the formalities were completed Deshmukh was released from jail. Earlier on Tuesday, Anil Deshmukh’s advocate Aniket Nikam said, for the extension of the stay on order granting Deshmukh’s bail CBI moved another application on Tuesday.

“Yesterday one more application was moved on behalf of CBI seeking further extension of the stay order. The application was rejected by the High Court,” Nikam said.

Moreover, without the prior approval of the trial court, Deshmukh cannot leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai and he has to cooperate with the investigation.

Earlier on 12 December, the Bombay High Court granted conditional bail to Anil Deskhmukh on a bond of Rs 1 lakh.

However, a stay of 10 days was granted by Bombay HC after hearing the plea of CBI and was extended till 27 December. The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected the plea for its further extension days.

Furthermore, a corruption case was filed by CBI against the NCP leader Anil Deshmukh.

HC Grants Bail To Ex-Maha Minister Anil Deshmukh

December 12, 2022, 3:22 pm

The Bombay High Court granted bail to former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh in a corruption case filed by CBI. The order is currently on hold since the CBI proposed to challenge it further in the High Court.

Justice Dipankar Datta swears in as Supreme Court judge

December 12, 2022, 1:40 pm

Justice Dipankar Datta, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, took oath as a Supreme Court Judge on Monday.

Justice Datta took the oath of office from Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. Justice Datta was appointed as the chief justice on Sunday, according to a statement from the Union Law Ministry’s Department of Justice.

The Supreme Court now has 28 judges on its bench. The Chief Justice of India is one of the Supreme Court’s 34 authorised members.

Justice Datta, who was born on February 9, 1965, turned 57 this year and will continue to serve on the Supreme Court, where the retirement age is 65, until February 8, 2030.

The appointment of Justice Datta to the Supreme Court has been proposed by the Supreme Court Collegium, which was chaired by former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit during its meeting on September 26, 2022.

Calcutta High Court was the father High Court of Justice Datta. The High Court where a judge was initially elevated to the bench is referred to as the judge’s parent High Court.

On June 22, 2006, Justice Datta, the late Justice Salil Kumar Datta’s son and a former member of the Calcutta High Court, was appointed as a permanent judge.

On April 28, 2020, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.

He was made the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on April 28, 2020.
Justice Dutta is the brother-in-law of Justice Amitava Roy, who was a former judge of the Supreme Court