Mumbai:

The Maharashtra government on Monday informed the Supreme Court that 4.39 acres of land will be handed over to the Bombay High Court by September 10 for the construction of the new building.

The Maharashtra government informed the bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala about the recent developments related to the allotment of additional lands for the High Court.

On July 8, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court had a meeting with the Judges Committee. The stakeholders participated in another meeting that was held on July 9. The State government also indicated the timeline to handover the balance area which measures 30.46 acres, to the High Court, the bench said.

The top court has listed the matter for further hearing on August 22.

The top court was hearing the petition initiated by its own on the need for proper accommodation for the High Court of Judicature in Bombay. The top court in May took suo moto jurisdiction over the issue and began the hearing on the case title, “Heritage Building of the Bombay High Court and allotment of additional lands for the High Court.”

The Bombay Bar Association president Nitin Thakker and other bar leaders have written a letter to the Chief Justice of India over the issue.

The existing building of the Bombay HC is about 150 years old. On October 3, 2022, the High Court approved the proposal of the Government of Maharashtra for allotting lands to it at Bandra (East), Mumbai.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court has granted parole to a man to bid farewell to his son, who is going to Australia for further studies, holding that if parole can be granted to share grief, it can also be for a happy occasion.

The court said conditional release for a brief time is allowed to convicts to let them be in touch with the outside world and to arrange for their family affairs as though behind bars, the convict continues to be someone’s son, husband, father or brother.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande in its order of July 9 said the provisions of parole and furlough have been time and again looked towards as a “humanistic approach” towards the convicts.

The court was hearing a petition filed by one Vivek Shrivastav seeking parole to arrange the tuition fees and other expenses for his son’s education at an Australian university and to also bid farewell to him.

The prosecution opposed the plea claiming that parole is normally given in emergency situations. Arranging money for education and bidding son farewell are not grounds on which parole should be given, it said.

The high court said it failed to understand this reasoning of the prosecution.

“Grief is an emotion, so is happiness and if parole can be granted to share grief, why not to share a happy occasion or moment,” the high court said.

The court said it fails to understand if parole can be granted to celebrate marriage, then why the benefit of the rule cannot be extended to the petitioner in the present case who needs it to arrange tuition fees for his son’s foreign education and to bid him farewell.

The court granted Shrivastav parole for ten days.

Shrivastav was convicted in a 2012 murder case and is serving his life sentence. He was convicted in 2018 and he filed an appeal in HC against his conviction in 2019.

As per his plea, his son has been selected for a course in Australia for which tuition fees of Rs 36 lakh have to be deposited along with travelling and stay expenses.

Shrivastav sought release on parole for a month to arrange the money and help out his family.

The bench said the aim and objective of the rules formulated to release a convict either on parole or on furlough was to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters.

“…and also to save him from the evil effects of continuous prison life and maintain his mental balance by creating active interest in life and to enable him to remain hopeful for the future,” HC said.

“The core of the benefits made available under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, is to repose the faith of a convict in the system,” the court said.

It added that as per the Rules, parole is not just granted in cases of emergencies but also to attend happy occasions or to cater to the needs of family members.

“We miserably fail to understand why the benefit of parole should be denied to the petitioner on a happy occasion like this, where the petitioner is seeking temporary relief so that he can arrange for financial resources and bid farewell to his son, who has secured an admission in a prestigious university in Australia,” HC said.

It added that a huge amount has to be arranged for the petitioner’s son to go to Australia.

“Unless and until the father is available to arrange for this amount, his young son may lose a chance and the offer which he has received,” the court said.

“We also feel that this is a moment to rejoice, when his son deserves a goodbye with best wishes being bestowed upon him from his father, and we do not intend that he should be kept away from this moment, which brings pride to him, being a father,” the court said.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court today directed the Maharashtra government to make the state advisory board for policies related to disabled persons functional within a month.

“For God’s sake, do it by then,” the high court said.

A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar said it was alarming that the state government requires directives from the court to fulfil its statutory obligations.

The state government should not wait for orders from court to implement laws, especially reformative ones, it said.

The government constituted the board under provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act in 2018, but it has been non-functional since 2020 as posts of the non-official members are vacant.

The high court bench on Wednesday asked the government to inform a time frame by when vacancies would be filled and the board would be made functional.

Additional government pleader Abhay Patki on Thursday said the board would be made functional in 15 days.

“We will give you some more time than 15 days. For God’s sake, do it by then. We direct that the advisory board shall be constituted and made functional within a month from today,” the high court said.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation taken up suo motu (on its own) on the issue of bollards put up on footpaths in Mumbai, thus making them inaccessible to persons with disabilities.

The bench noted that if the state advisory board was functional, then courts would not be burdened with matters pertaining to the welfare of persons with disabilities.

“We could have relegated this matter also to the board. It could have taken all measures,” the court said.

The state government should not wait for orders from court to implement laws, especially reformative ones, it said.

“Can there be anything more alarming that for an Act the court has to issue directions. This is your (government) obligation. For this also you need directions?” CJ Upadhyaya asked.

In July 2023, the Maharashtra government informed the Supreme Court, which was hearing a matter related to disabled persons, that the state advisory board was constituted, the bench noted.

It is true that the board was set up in 2018 but it is non-functional since 2020 due to vacancies, the court said.

“What is the use of merely constituting a board when it is not functional? We hope and expect that within 30 days the board shall be made functional in all respects,” the high court said posting the matter for further hearing on August 14.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Mumbai:

Unauthorized hawkers have virtually taken over every street in the city leaving no place for pedestrians, the Bombay High Court has observed, asking why ordinary citizens should not get the treatment that only “VVIPs” seem to get.

A division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Kamal Khata in an order of June 25 said the problem has reached “alarming proportions”, and the government and civic body cannot take their own “sweet time” to deal with it.

A copy of the order became available on Tuesday.

The high court had last year taken suo motu note of the issue of illegal and unauthorized hawkers and vendors in the city, and initiated this petition.

The court has issued several directions to the Maharashtra government and Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation but their implementation continues to be a casualty, the judges said.

“The hawkers and street vendors have virtually taken over the street lanes and bylanes. There is no place for people to walk on the footpaths,” the HC said.

Pedestrians have to navigate between unauthorised hawkers and haphazardly parked vehicles, it noted.

“Merely because the members of the public are tolerant or possibly fed up with complaining any more to the civic authorities does not reduce the magnitude of this problem or their immense sufferings….The public cannot be made to wait endlessly and keep tolerating this intolerable situation,” it added.

Whenever the civic body conducts an anti-encroachment drive, hawkers and vendors return within few minutes, the high court said, adding that when some VVIP visits the city, all roads and footpaths are cleared and sometimes even potholes are filled up.

“Do not the law-abiding citizens with whose money these VIPs function deserve the same treatment? Isn’t it their right to insist that laws are obeyed and, if not voluntarily obeyed, enforced by the executive arm?” the HC asked.

The petition was initiated two years back but the issue of illegal/ unlicensed street vendors multiplies daily, the court said, adding, “the state and BMC cannot take their own sweet time on one pretext or the other.” The court asked the BMC, police and the state government to file affidavits stating what action they have taken against illegal hawkers.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:
A 17-year-old boy who was involved in the Porsche car accident that killed two techies in Pune last month has been granted a big relief by the Bombay High Court which ordered that he should be released immediately from an observation home.

Here Are Bombay High Court’s Top Quotes:

Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court on Monday said when streets and footpaths are cleared for the prime minister and other VVIPs for one day, why can’t it be done on a daily basis for everyone else too.

Having a clear footpath and a safe place to walk was every person’s fundamental right and the state authorities were obligated to provide the same, a division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Kamal Khata.

The state cannot perpetually just wonder what can be done to work out the problem of unauthorised hawkers encroaching upon footpaths in the city and has to now do something drastically, the bench said.

The high court last year took suo motu (on its own) cognizance of the issue of illegal and unauthorised hawkers and vendors in the city.

On Monday, the bench said while it knows the problem is large, the state and other authorities, including the civic body, cannot just leave it at that and called for some drastic action.

“When the prime minister or some VVIPs come, the streets and footpaths are immediately cleared…and it stays so till they are here. How is it done then? Why can’t it be done for everyone else? Citizens are ratepayers…they need to have a clear footpath and safe place to walk,” the court said.

“Footpath and a safe place to walk is a fundamental right. We tell our children to walk on footpaths but if there is no footpath left to walk on, what do we tell our children?” the court asked.

For years together, the authorities have been saying they are working on the issue, it said.

“The state has to do something drastically. It cannot be that the authorities are perpetually just wondering what to do and working on it. There seems to be a lack of will, because where there is a will there is always a way,” the high court said.

Senior counsel SU Kamdar, appearing for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), said periodic action is taken against such vendors and hawkers but they keep coming back.

He said the BMC was also considering the option of underground markets.

The court then remarked in jest that the corporation was literally trying to bury the problem underground.

The bench noted the fine imposed by civic bodies on these vendors/hawkers was irrelevant as they have higher sales per day.

“Your fine is pittance to them. They will pay and leave,” the high court said.

The court suggested the BMC develop a database identifying all such hawkers so that they do not breach orders and come back with their stalls.

“Let there be a combing operation. Start with one street…the biggest trouble is identification. They keep coming back because they are not identifiable,” it said.

The court posted the matter for further hearing on July 22.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court today allowed the release of actor Annu Kapoor-starrer “Hamare Baarah” movie after its makers agreed to delete certain objectionable portions.

The film, which was originally slated for release on June 7 and then on June 14, is likely to hit the screens on June 21.

The film got embroiled in a legal battle after a bunch of petitions were filed in the high court claiming that it distorted the Quran and was derogatory towards the Islamic faith and the Muslim community.

The pleas sought a ban on the release of the movie.

A division bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla viewed the film and suggested certain changes to it which both the makers and the petitioners agreed to.

Pursuant to this, the court said the makers shall make the necessary changes and then release the movie.

The makers later said that necessary changes would be made and a certificate would be obtained from the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC), commonly known as the Censor Board. The makers are now planning to release the movie on June 21.

The high court also imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the makers of the movie for releasing the trailer before receiving certification from the CBFC.

Earlier this month, the high court postponed the release of the movie.

It later permitted the release after the makers said the objectionable portions would be deleted as directed by the CBFC.

The petitioners then moved the Supreme Court, which last week stayed the release of the movie and directed the high court to hear and take an appropriate decision.

On Tuesday, the high court said it had seen the movie and found nothing objectionable in it that was against the Quran or the Muslim community, and observed that the film is in fact aimed at upliftment of women.

It also said that the Indian public was “not gullible or silly”.

On Wednesday, the parties concerned submitted consent terms to the court stating that they have arrived at a consensus regarding removal of certain objectionable portions and dialogues in the movie.

The changes would include displaying of the disclaimer for 12 seconds to enable viewers to read the text and also inclusion of an extra verse from the Quran as sought by the petitioners.

The petitioners said they do not have any objection against the release of the movie once the changes are made.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court on Thursday allowed a 19-year-old woman to terminate her 25-week pregnancy, which she sought on the grounds of “grave psychological effects” and “social stigma”.

A division bench of Justices Somasekhar Sundaresan and NR Borkar said “her sovereign entitlement to make an autonomous choice about her body and to exercise it in the form of opting for medical termination lends itself to acceptance”.

In a petition filed on May 27, the woman had sought termination of pregnancy of 25 weeks. Stating she was from the lower income group, the woman said grave psychological effects of the pregnancy and social stigma were the primary reasons for the desire to terminate the pregnancy.

The bench noted that her medical reports “indicated no abnormality with the foetus”. However, it had not considered her emotional and mental health, the bench said.

The medical board of Sassoon Hospital had examined the petitioner, counselled her and filed a report before the court which stated that “considering the woman’s current psychological status, sociocultural and economic conditions, continuation of pregnancy can lead to grave psychological injury”.

The findings of the report submitted by the medical board are essentially that she would suffer “grave psychological injury if the pregnancy is continued”, the court noted.

“Upon careful consideration of the record and our interaction with the petitioner, we are of the opinion that she is indeed fully aware of the foetus having a heartbeat and is also firmly desirous of terminating the pregnancy after being made well aware of the procedure to be adopted,” the court said.

On a suggestion that her partner in causation of the pregnancy should have a stake in the decision, the bench said, “We are satisfied that the law declared by the Supreme Court renders the partner as not being a stakeholder in the choice of exercise of reproductive right by the pregnant person.” Applying the guidelines of the Supreme court, they have been persuaded to permit medical termination of the woman’s pregnancy, the HC bench said.

“Consequently, we permit the petitioner to undergo the termination procedure at the Sassoon Hospital, Pune at the earliest, and if possible, immediately today, May 30, 2024,” the court said. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court on Monday permitted a 12-year-old rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy, noting that her welfare and safety was of paramount importance.

A vacation bench of Justices Sandeep Marne and Neela Gokhale perused the report submitted by the medical board recommending termination of the 25-week pregnancy.

“Bearing in mind the exigencies of the situation, the welfare of the minor, which is of paramount importance and her safety,” the bench said.

The girl was allegedly raped by her 14-year-old brother, and a case has been registered against him, as per the plea filed by the girl’s mother in the high court.

Earlier this month, the girl complained of stomach ache to her mother, and when she was taken to the hospital, the pregnancy came to light.

The girl then revealed that her elder brother would forcefully establish a physical relationship with her when no one was at home.

He also threatened her with dire consequences.

On the mother’s complaint, an FIR was registered under the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against the son, and he was sent to a juvenile home.

The bench, in its order, said the girl was unaware of the fact that she was pregnant until a very late stage.

“The medical board has clearly opined that the pregnancy will have grievous injury to the mental and physical health of the patient if continued,” it said.

The bench said that after the termination procedure, the hospital shall provide the girl counselling.

It also directed the hospital authorities to preserve the appropriate tissue sample of the foetus and DNA sample and forward these to the investigating officer for the ensuing criminal trial.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court today ruled that public sector banks do not have the power in law to issue Look Out Circulars (LOCs) against default borrowers.

The high court’s verdict would render all LOCs issued by such banks against defaulters as quashed.

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar held as unconstitutional the clause of an office memorandum issued by the central government empowering the chairpersons of public sector banks to issue LOCs against default borrowers.

Advocate Aditya Thakker, appearing for the Union government, sought the high court to stay its order but the bench refused.

The court passed its verdict on a bunch of petitions challenging validity of the said clause.

The bench said the Bureau of Immigration shall not act upon such LOCs (issued by banks against defaulters).

The court also said its judgment would not affect the orders issued against any defaulter by a tribunal or a criminal court restraining them from travelling abroad.

While the office memorandum issued by the Centre was not ultra vires the Constitution, the clause empowering the chairperson of a public sector bank to issue LOC was “arbitrary and without power in law”, the high court said.

The Centre’s office memorandum, in an amendment made in 2018, empowered the public sector banks to issue LOCs in the “economic interest of India”.

This essentially restrained a person from travelling abroad if his/her departure could be detrimental to the economic interest of the country.

The petitioners contended that the words “economic interest of India” cannot be equated with the “financial interests” of any bank.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)