News Analysis India

Tag: Bombay High Court

  • Sameer Wankhede’s father challenges HC order that refused to restrain Malik from making comments against NCB officer

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: Dnyandev Wankhede, father of NCB’s zonal director Sameer Wankhede, on Wednesday approached the Bombay High Court challenging its single-judge bench order that had refused to restrain Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik from making comments and putting social media posts against the anti-drug agency officer and his family.

    Dnyandev Wankhede mentioned for urgent hearing his appeal challenging the single bench order and urged a division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav to grant him relief.

    His appeal is likely to be heard by the division bench on Thursday.

    On Monday, a single-judge bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar had refused to grant Wankhede any interim relief in his defamation suit filed against Malik, a leader of Maharashtra’s ruling party NCP.

    Wankhede had cited Malik’s tweets and public statements, whereby the latter had alleged among other things, that Sameer Wankhede had been born a Muslim, but had falsely claimed that he belonged to a designated Scheduled Caste (SC) to secure a central government job.

    He had sought as interim relief that Malik be prohibited from making any defamatory statements or tweets, social media posts, etc, against him, Sameer Wankhede, or any of their family members.

    Justice Jamdar, however, had held that imposing such a blanket prohibition upon Malik was not possible in the present case.

    The single bench had held that though it seemed apparent that Malik’s statements and tweets against the NCB officer had actuated out of malice and animosity, the allegations the minister had made against Sameer Wankhede did not seem prima facie (on the face of it) to be completely false.

    The single bench, however, had directed Malik to henceforth make public statements or comments against Wankhede and his family only after reasonable verification of facts.

    In his appeal mentioned before the division bench, Dnyandev Wankhede contended that since the single bench had held that Malik’s allegations against Sameer Wankhede had stemmed out of malice, the minister should have been restrained from making further defamatory comments against him and his family.

  • Anil Deshmukh case: Police force not part of some ‘zamindari system’, CBI tells Bombay High Court​

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Bombay High Court on Monday that a state’s police force was an independent institution, supposed to be free of the executive’s control and not part of some “zamindari system’ as it opposed the Maharashtra government’s move to seek quashing of summons issued to two top bureaucrats in the Anil Deshmukh case.

    The Maharashtra government had no right to approach the court and seek that the summons issued by the central agency to state chief secretary Sitaram Kunte and current DGP Sanjay Pandey, related to its extortion probe against former home minister Anil Deshmukh, be quashed, the CBI told a bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and SV Kotwal.

    Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, who appeared for the CBI, told the bench that as per law, the police force was institutionalized and was not part of some “zamindari system” that the Maharashtra government could approach the HC claiming it was doing so on behalf of its entire police establishment since the CBI’s summons to its DGP was demoralising the force.

    Lekhi said the state’s petition was wholly misconceived and an attempt to interfere with the CBI’s probe against Deshmukh.

    The Maharashtra government’s counsel, senior advocate Darius Khambata, had earlier told the bench that the state was justified in approaching the HC in the case since the CBI’s summons to the chief secretary and its senior most police officer was demoralising its entire police force.

    Khambata had said that the state had approached the HC by invoking its “parens patriae jurisdiction”- a provision of law that allows the next of kin, a legal guardian, or a friend to approach court on behalf of someone who is a minor, disabled, or, not in a position to approach the court.

    Lekhi, however, said, “The question of parens patriae doesn’t arise. We are dealing with delinquency in a criminal case and in criminal law, the doctrine of parens patriae cannot be invoked to stall a central agency’s investigation.”

    “This shows the desperation of the state. In which category do the DGP and chief secretary come – minor, insane, disabled?” he asked.

    Lekhi further said in the present case, no fundamental right of the state government was being violated.

    He claimed the state government’s real intent was to interfere in the CBI’s probe into the allegations of extortion made against Deshmukh by former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh.

    “The police force is not a part of some zamindari system. Therefore, the executive can’t lay a claim to be a proprietor of its police force and come to court saying the entire force is being affected carrying the mindset that these are our officers,” Lekhi said.

    Lekhi opposed the state government’s submission that the ongoing probe was compromised since the present CBI director Subodh Jaiswal was the state DGP when Deshmukh was the home minister and had hence been part of several meetings in which transfers and postings of police officials had been discussed.

    The state government had said that since the CBI was probing Deshmukh’s interference in transfers and postings, Jaiswal, who took charge as director of the CBI in May this year, himself should be a potential subject of Investigation.

    Lekhi, however, said, “Jaiswal is a member of the (Police Establishment) board, the board had meetings, so obviously he attended those. The question though is, has what has happened because of his participation in those meetings, or because of the home minister’s conduct?”

    “The involvement of Deshmukh and Deshmukh putting his men out for extortion is under scrutiny,” he said.

    Following an order of the Bombay high court issued on April 5 this year, the CBI conducted a preliminary inquiry into the allegations made by Singh against Deshmukh (71).

    The central agency subsequently registered an FIR against the NCP leader.

    In September this year, the CBI summoned chief secretary Kunte and DGP Pandey, asking them to report to the central agency’s office in Delhi for answering questions related to Deshmukh.

    The Maharashtra government, however, approached HC challenging the summons.

    The HC will hear the plea further on November 23.

  • Nawab Malik’s tweets against Sameer Wankhede stem from malice but no blanket gag order: HC

    Besides, Wankhede was a government officer and some of the allegations made against him by Malik were related to the discharge of his public duty, the HC noted.

  • After HC’s detailed order in Aryan Khan case comes out, Nawab Malik seeks action against Sameer Wankhede

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik on Saturday said the detailed order of the Bombay High Court on Aryan Khan’s bail application corroborated his claim that the drugs case against Khan and others was bogus.

    Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) zonal director Sameer Wankhede should be suspended following the court’s findings, he said.

    Malik has been targeting Wankhede ever since the NCB official led a raid on a cruise ship off the Mumbai coast on October 2 during which drugs were allegedly seized and Aryan Khan, Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son, was arrested.

    ALSO READ | No positive evidence to show Aryan Khan, 2 others conspired to commit drug-related offences: Bombay HC

    While Aryan got bail on October 28, the detailed order became available on Saturday.

    Malik said in a statement that the order puts a question mark on the NCB’s arrest of Aryan Khan.

    He also reiterated his allegation that Aryan was kidnapped for the purpose of extortion.

    Wankhede had moved the high court when actor Rhea Chakraborty was granted bail by the lower court in an alleged drugs case last year, and the NCB officer would move the Supreme Court in Aryan’s case now, the minister alleged .

    “Such wastage of public funds should stop,” he said.

    When contacted, Sameer Wankhede said he can not comment on the high court’s order as the matter was sub-judice (before a court).

    The officer also said he did not want to give importance to Malik’s allegations.

    As per the detailed order of Justice N W Sambre on bail pleas of Aryan Khan, his friend Arbaaz Merchant and fashion model Munmun Dhamecha, WhatsApp chats extracted from Aryan’s phone showed that nothing objectionable was noticed to suggest that he and others had hatched any conspiracy.

    “There is hardly any positive evidence on record to convince this court that all the accused persons with common intention agreed to commit unlawful acts,” the court said.

  • Nawab Malik seeks action against NCB’s Sameer Wankhede after HC verdict on Aryan Khan case

    By Express News Service

    MUMBAI: After the release of Bombay High Court’s detailed bail order in the Aryan Khan drug case, NCP minister Nawab Malik on Saturday demanded immediate suspension of former NCB zonal director Sameer Wankhede for “framing” Khan and other accused.

    ​ALSO READ | No positive evidence to show Aryan Khan, 2 others conspired to commit drug-related offences: Bombay HC

    Malik said that since day one he has been telling that the case is nothing but well-orchestrated plan to frame Aryan Khan and others by Sameer Wankhede and his “private army”. Malik said the court’s detailed bail order proved it was a “kidnapping and ransom” incident.

    “It was a pre-planned plot but one selfie by KP Gosavi spoiled their plan of extortion. The fraudulent plan of Sameer Wankhede and his people has been exposed in broad daylight now,” Malik added. Malik said that despite this “crystal clear” court order, if BJP leaders are trying to protect Wankhede, it will prove the  BJP is behind him in framing innocent people in drug cases.

  • Defamation case: Nawab Malik, Dnyandev Wankhede produce fresh documents, HC order on Nov 22

    By Express News Service

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday said it will pass its order on November 22 on a plea filed by Dnyandev Wankhede, father of NCB’s zonal director Sameer Wankhede, seeking interim reliefs against Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik, including an injunction prohibiting him from posting any defamatory content on social media against the anti-drug agency officer and his family.

    A single bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar on Thursday took on record additional documents submitted by Malik and Dnyandev Wankhede, related to the ongoing controversy over the NCB officer’s caste certificate.

    NCP minister Nawab Malik had submitted Sameer Wankhede’s school leaving certificates by Saint Joseph High School (Wadala) where his name is written as Sameer Dawood Wankhede and he is mentioned as a Muslim in 1989. Malik also submitted Wankhede’s other school leaving certificate (Saint Paul High ) where his name is mentioned as Sameer Dawood Wankhede and shows his faith to be Islam in 1986. 

    Earlier, Malik had produced a 1979 letter by a health officer of the civic body’s E Ward with Wankhede’s complete birth details. It mentions Dhyandev’s name was Dawood K Wankhede and it was only in 1993 that the sub-registrar corrected his name to Dhyandev. Further, Sameer Wankhede’s name was registered as Muslim, Malik claimed.

    He further claimed that even though there is a declaration changing Dhyandev Wankhede’s name in 1993, there is no change in the religion of the newborn.

    To counter Malik, Dhyandev Wankhede submitted a set of counter documents that included his son’s birth and caste certificates allegedly showing that he indeed belongs to a Scheduled Caste.

    The HC directed both the parties to refrain from submitting any fresh documents until it pronounces its order on November 22.

    Malik has been alleging that Sameer Wankhede, though born a Muslim, had secured a central government job claiming to be from the SC category. But Wankhede has denied the allegations levelled against him.

    Wankhede’s father had filed a defamation suit against Malik earlier this month in the high court, seeking among other things that Malik be restrained from posting defamatory statements against him and his family on social media.

    He has also sought damages worth Rs 1.25 crore.

    Malik has been fiercely attacking Sameer Wankhede after the Narcotics Control Bureau’s raid on a cruise party last month following which around 20 people, including actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan, were arrested. Aryan Khan and some other accused were later released on bail.

  • Sexual assault: Supreme Court quashes judgement of Bombay HC on ‘skin-to-skin contact’

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the Bombay High Court verdict which had held that no offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act is made out if there is no direct skin-to-skin contact between an accused and victim.

    A bench headed by Justice UU Lalit set aside the high court judgement, and said the most important ingredient of constituting sexual assault is sexual intent and not skin-to-skin with the child. The apex court said that purpose of the law cannot be to allow the offender to escape the meshes of the law.

    “We have held that when the legislature has expressed clear intention, the courts cannot create ambiguity in the provision. It is right that courts cannot be overzealous in creating ambiguity,” the bench, also comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi, said.

    The top court, which was hearing separate appeals of Attorney General and the National Commission for women (NCW), had on January 27 stayed the order which had acquitted a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act saying groping a minor’s breast without ‘skin to skin contact’ cannot be termed as sexual assault .

    The sessions court had sentenced the man to three years of imprisonment for the offences under the POCSO Act as also under IPC section 354. The sentences were to run concurrently. The high court, however, acquitted him under the POCSO Act while upholding his conviction under IPC section 354.

  • Touching child’s body parts with ‘sexual intent’ amounts to ‘sexual assault’ under POCSO Act: SC

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Touching sexual parts of a child’s body or any act involving physical contact with ‘sexual intent’ amounts to ‘sexual assault’ under Section 7 of the POCSO Act as the most important ingredient is sexual intent and not skin-to-skin contact, the Supreme Court said on Thursday.

    Quashing the controversial ‘skin-to-skin’ judgements of the Bombay High Court in two cases under the POCSO Act, the apex court said the high court erred in holding that there was no offence since there was no direct physical ‘skin to skin’ contact with sexual intent.

    The high court had held that no offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act was made out if there was no direct skin-to-skin contact between an accused and victim.

    The POCSO Act defines sexual assault as when someone “with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault”.

    The apex court said the act of touching any sexual part of the body of a child with “sexual intent or any other act” involving physical contact with sexual intent, could not be trivialised or held insignificant or peripheral so as to exclude such act from the purview of ‘sexual assault’ under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.

    “The word ‘Touch’ has been used specifically with regard to the sexual parts of the body, whereas the word ‘physical contact’ has been used for any other act. Therefore, the act of touching the sexual part of body or any other act involving physical contact, if done with ‘sexual intent’ would amount to ‘sexual assault’ within the meaning of Section 7 of the POCSO Act,” the top court said in its 53-page judgment said.

    A three-judge bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said any narrow and pedantic interpretation of the provision which would defeat the object of the provision, cannot be accepted.

    “Restricting the interpretation of the words ‘touch’ or ‘physical contact’ to ‘skin to skin contact’ would not only be a narrow and pedantic interpretation of the provision contained in Section 7 of the POCSO Act, but it would lead to an absurd interpretation of the said provision.

    “Skin to skin contact” for constituting an offence of “sexual assault” could not have been intended or contemplated by the Legislature,” said Justice Bela M Trivedi, who wrote the judgement on her and Justice Lalit’s behalf.

    Justice Bhat, who wrote a separate concurring judgment, said Section 7 of POCSO has to be viewed having regard to the mischief rule, the background and history leading up to the enactment of the legislation.

    “The reasoning in the high court’s judgment quite insensitively trivializes – indeed legitimizes an entire range of unacceptable behaviour which undermines a child’s dignity and autonomy, through unwanted intrusions.

    “The high court, therefore clearly erred in acting on such interpretation, and basing its conviction of and awarding sentence to the respondents; as it did they were guilty of sexual assault,” Justice Bhat said.

    The top court said the very object of enacting the POCSO Act is to protect the children from sexual abuse, and if such a narrow interpretation is accepted, it would lead to a very detrimental situation, frustrating the very object of the Act.

    “As in that case touching the sexual or non sexual parts of the body of a child with gloves, condoms, sheets or with cloth, though done with sexual intent would not amount to an offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.”

    The most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act is the “sexual intent” and not the “skin to skin” contact with the child,” the bench said.

    It said the law would have to be interpreted having regard to the subject matter of the offence and to the object of the law it seeks to achieve.

    The purpose of the law cannot be to allow the offender to sneak out of the meshes of law, the apex court said.

    “The Court can not be oblivious to the fact that the impact of traumatic sexual assault committed on children of tender age could endure during their whole life, and may also have an adverse effect on their mental state.”

    “The suffering of the victims in certain cases may be immeasurable. Therefore, considering the objects of the POCSO Act, its provisions, more particularly pertaining to the sexual assault, sexual harassment etc. have to be construed vis-a-vis the other provisions, so as to make the objects of the Act more meaningful and effective,” the bench said.

    Justice Trivedi said that while interpreting a statute, the courts should strive to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it.

    “It is the duty of the Courts to accept an interpretation or construction which promotes the object of the legislation and prevents its possible abuse. It is also trite that a court should not be over zealous in searching for ambiguities or obscurities in words which are plain,” she said.

    The bench said it clearly emerges that the high court fell into error in case of the accused Satish in holding him guilty for the minor offences under Sections 342 (Punishment for wrongful confinement) and 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of Indian Penal Code and acquitting him for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

    It quashed and set aside the two judgments of the high court and convicted Satish for the offences punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 342, 354 and 363 (Punishment for kidnapping) of the IPC.

    In the other case, the apex court convicted the accused Libnus Kujur under Sections 354-A (1)(i) and 448 (punishment for house-trespass) of the IPC as also for the offences under Sections 8, 12 and 10 read with Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act.

    It is, therefore, no part of any judge’s duty to strain the plain words of a statute, beyond recognition and to the point of its destruction, thereby denying the cry of the times that children desperately need the assurance of a law designed to protect their autonomy and dignity, as POCSO does.

    The top court’s judgement came on separate appeals filed by the Attorney General and the National Commission for Women (NCW).

    The two judgments were passed by Justice Pushpa Ganediwala of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench).

    The verdict had said that groping a minor’s breast without skin-to-skin contact cannot be termed as sexual assault as defined under the POCSO Act.

    It had said that since the man groped the child without removing her clothes the offence cannot be termed as sexual assault but it does constitute the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty under IPC section 354.

  • HC transfers special judge hearing ED case against Anil Deshmukh to Yavatmal district

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: Special judge HS Satbhai, who was hearing the applications of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for remand of former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh in a money laundering case and other cases pertaining to MPs and MLAs, has been transferred to Yavatmal district by the Bombay High Court with immediate effect.

    He had been hearing cases pertaining to MPs and MLAs since July this year at the sessions court here.

    On Monday, judge Satbhai had remanded Deshmukh in 14-day judicial custody.

    Besides Deshmukh’s case, judge Satbhai was also hearing a case against Maharashtra minister Chhagan Bhujbal in connection with the alleged Maharashtra Sadan scam and discharged the latter.

    Deshmukh was arrested on November 1 by the ED under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

    In a notification issued on Monday, the Bombay High Court said it was pleased to transfer and post H S Satbhai, Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai as District Judge, 2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, district Yavatmal with immediate effect.

    Yavatmal district in east Maharashtra is located 685 km away from Mumbai.

    Judge Satbhai recently discharged Bhujbal and others in the Maharashtra Sadan case, observing that there was no “substantial material” to suggest that he and his kin received any kind of “illegal gratification” in the contract for constructing new Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi.

    Judge Satbhai was also hearing the pre-arrest bail plea of former Shiv Sena MP Anand Adsul in a case pertaining to an alleged scam in a cooperative bank.

    He was also hearing the alleged Pune land deal case involving former Maharashtra minister Eknath Khadse, an NCP leader.

  • MSRTC strike: Over 1,500 employees rejoin duty, 36 buses operated

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: As many as 1,532 employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation on Friday resumed duty and 36 buses were operated across the state even as the strike called by the unions entered its 16th day without any solution in sight.

    The number of employees who joined duty as claimed by the MSRTC and that of the buses which ran on the roads were miniscule.

    The corporation has about 95,000 employees on its rolls, and maintains a fleet of about 16,000 buses.

    The main demand of the employees is that the cash-strapped corporation be merged with the state government, so that they get the status and benefits of government employees.

    The government has formed a committee to examine the issue.

    ALSO READ: Maharashtra issues GR to form panel, allows school and other buses to carry passengers

    Shekhar Channe, vice-chairman and managing director of the MSRTC, said at a press conference in the evening that so far 1, 532 employees have resumed work and 36 buses were operated from 17 locations across the state.

    The corporation has lost about Rs 125 crore since the strike began on October 28, he said.

    “The help of the police department is being taken to ensure that the employees who want to rejoin duty are not obstructed,” Channe said.

    Buses were operated on routes including Mumbai-Satara, Dadar-Pune, Swargate (Pune)- Thane, Nashik-Pune, Nashik-Dhule, Solapur-Akkalkot and Rajapur -Burumbewadi.

    The highest seven buses were operated on the Pune Station-Dadar route. Over 850 passengers travelled by 36 buses. All 250 depots of the MSRTC have been closed since Monday.

    The MSRTC also issued a pamphlet on Friday, urging the employees to call off the strike immediately.

    Accumulated losses of the corporation have risen to Rs 12,000 crore, still it paid the salaries for the last 18 months by taking a financial assistance of Rs 3,549 crore from the state government, it said.

    “We will continue to make sincere efforts to pay salaries on time,” the corporation assured.

    The pamphlet also mentioned the fulfillment of other demands such as increase in the dearness allowance and house rent allowance and a Diwali gift for the employees.

    Ordinary commuters have been suffering and the MSRTC is losing Rs 15 to 20 crore every day due to the strike, it said, also warning of a long-term financial impact.

    According to the officials, so far the state-owned corporation has suspended 2,053 employees for taking part in the strike.

    A group of MSRTC employees, meanwhile, continued their protest at Azad Maidan in South Mumbai for the third day.

    No meeting is scheduled between the government and unions to end the deadlock as of now, officials said.

    The MSRTC on Wednesday filed a contempt petition in the Bombay High Court, saying the unions have continued the strike despite the HC declaring it illegal.

    The court has sought replies from the unions and will hear the matter on November 15.