The Bombay High Court Tuesday directed the Railways to ensure that sewage or untreated water is not used for irrigation and cultivation of vegetables on land along railway tracks across the country.

A bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice NM Jamdar directed the general manager of the Indian Railways to ensure that the court's direction is implemented and licences of violators are cancelled.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by a city NGO through lawyer JP Kharge.

Kharge alleged that several people had been given licences by the Western and Central Railways to cultivate along the railway tracks of the Mumbai's suburban rail network.

However, many of these people were using "sewage water" for irrigation and all the toxins from such water were being passed on to the vegetables grown there.

Kharge told the court that chemical analysis of some vegetables grown along the tracks had found high levels of lead, arsenic, copper and other metals.

These metals can have an adverse effect on human health, he said.

Counsel for Western and Central Railways, advocate Suresh Kumar, told the court that while the railways had given licences to some of its Grade C and D staff to cultivate on surplus land along the railway tracks in the city, its rules did not permit the use of untreated water.

The court said while the idea behind using surplus land for cultivation was good, the railways were bound to ensure that "public health" was not compromised.

It, therefore, directed the authorities to ensure none of the licence holders across the country was permitted to use untreated water or to flout other terms of the licence granted to them.&nbsp;

The Bombay High Court Tuesday directed the Railways to ensure that sewage or untreated water is not used for irrigation and cultivation of vegetables on land along railway tracks across the country.

The Bombay High Court Tuesday directed the Railways to ensure that sewage or untreated water is not used for irrigation and cultivation of vegetables on land along railway tracks across the country. A bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice NM Jamdar directed the general manager of the Indian Railways to ensure that the court's direction is implemented and licences of violators are cancelled. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by a city NGO through lawyer JP Kharge. Kharge alleged that several people had been given licences by the Western and Central Railways to cultivate along the railway tracks of the Mumbai's suburban rail network. However, many of these people were using "sewage water" for irrigation and all the toxins from such water were being passed on to the vegetables grown there. Kharge told the court that chemical analysis of some vegetables grown along the tracks had found high levels of lead, arsenic, copper and other metals. These metals can have an adverse effect on human health, he said. Counsel for Western and Central Railways, advocate Suresh Kumar, told the court that while the railways had given licences to some of its Grade C and D staff to cultivate on surplus land along the railway tracks in the city, its rules did not permit the use of untreated water. The court said while the idea behind using surplus land for cultivation was good, the railways were bound to ensure that "public health" was not compromised. It, therefore, directed the authorities to ensure none of the licence holders across the country was permitted to use untreated water or to flout other terms of the licence granted to them.

Ensure that untreated water, sewage not used for crops: Bombay High Court to Railways

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya told the Bombay High Court Wednesday that by declaring him a fugitive economic offender and allowing attachment of his assets, a special court had awarded him an "economic death penalty".

Mallya made the statement through his counsel Amit Desai before a bench of justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre, during arguments on his plea challenging several provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act that came into existence in August last year.

"My debts and the interest on such debts are mounting. I have assets to pay off these debts but the government won't allow the use of these assets to clear the debts. I have no control over my properties," the businessman said.

"This is an economic death penalty that has been awarded to me," he said.

Desai urged the court to pass an injunction against the proceedings related to confiscation of his assets across the country.

The bench, however, refused to grant any interim relief on the petition.

A special court here had in January declared Mallya a fugitive economic offender (FEO) under provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act.

Later, Mallya approached the high court, challenging the provisions of the act that permits, among other things, confiscation of assets and placing them under the control of the Union government.

He also filed another petition challenging the special court order that declared him an FEO which was being heard by another division bench of the high court.

Desai argued that the FEO Act was "draconian" and "unconstitutional" as it allowed the Centre to confiscate everything, irrespective of whether a property was bought from the proceeds of a crime or not.

Mallya's plea was opposed by the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) counsel D P Singh, who argued that the Act was not draconian at all.

"This act is not draconian. In fact, this act prohibits prosecuting agencies from acting on their own. For everything, including attachment of properties, we are supposed to get a court order that is passed only after hearing all sides," Singh said.

"This act is meant for Mallya-like people only. It is not ordinary legislation. The act has been constituted to bring back defaulters who have defaulted amounts of Rs 100 crore and above," the counsel said.

The court, too, noted that the legislation was a sound one and not draconian.

"We understand this legislation is a little harsh. But that is because it deals with draconian situations," the bench said.

It, however, issued a notice to the attorney general to respond to Mallya's plea challenging the act.&nbsp;

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya told the Bombay High Court Wednesday that by declaring him a fugitive economic offender and allowing attachment of his assets, a special court had awarded him an "economic death penalty".

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya told the Bombay High Court Wednesday that by declaring him a fugitive economic offender and allowing attachment of his assets, a special court had awarded him an "economic death penalty". Mallya made the statement through his counsel Amit Desai before a bench of justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre, during arguments on his plea challenging several provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act that came into existence in August last year. "My debts and the interest on such debts are mounting. I have assets to pay off these debts but the government won't allow the use of these assets to clear the debts. I have no control over my properties," the businessman said. "This is an economic death penalty that has been awarded to me," he said. Desai urged the court to pass an injunction against the proceedings related to confiscation of his assets across the country. The bench, however, refused to grant any interim relief on the petition. A special court here had in January declared Mallya a fugitive economic offender (FEO) under provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act. Later, Mallya approached the high court, challenging the provisions of the act that permits, among other things, confiscation of assets and placing them under the control of the Union government. He also filed another petition challenging the special court order that declared him an FEO which was being heard by another division bench of the high court. Desai argued that the FEO Act was "draconian" and "unconstitutional" as it allowed the Centre to confiscate everything, irrespective of whether a property was bought from the proceeds of a crime or not. Mallya's plea was opposed by the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) counsel D P Singh, who argued that the Act was not draconian at all. "This act is not draconian. In fact, this act prohibits prosecuting agencies from acting on their own. For everything, including attachment of properties, we are supposed to get a court order that is passed only after hearing all sides," Singh said. "This act is meant for Mallya-like people only. It is not ordinary legislation. The act has been constituted to bring back defaulters who have defaulted amounts of Rs 100 crore and above," the counsel said. The court, too, noted that the legislation was a sound one and not draconian. "We understand this legislation is a little harsh. But that is because it deals with draconian situations," the bench said. It, however, issued a notice to the attorney general to respond to Mallya's plea challenging the act.

Declaring me fugitive offender is like giving 'economic death penalty': Vijay Mallya tells Bombay High Court

Fugitive diamond merchant Mehul Chowksi on Wednesday approached the Bombay High Court over the non-consideration of his plea regarding his inability to return to India due to persisting health problems and denial of the right to cross-examination.

Last month, Mehul Choksi moved a new application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court here, stating his long history of heart ailments and a blood clot in the brain.

This comes after it was reported that the extradition process against embattled diamond jeweller Mehul Choksi has begun in Antigua.

Choksi's counsel Vijay and Ashul Agarwal submitted his detailed medical history citing his ailments constraining him from travelling and hence leading to his inability to return to India.

His counsel also placed 38 documents on record including the latest prescriptions in which doctors have highly recommend that Choksi should remain under continuous medical supervision in Antigua and should avoid travelling as his medical condition may deteriorate.

Mehul Choksi and nephew Nirav Modi are kingpins of the Rs 13,000-crore Punjab National Bank fraud.

They both fled from the country a year ago. Choksi was granted citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda on January 15, 2018.&nbsp;

Fugitive diamond merchant Mehul Chowksi on Wednesday approached the Bombay High Court over the non-consideration of his plea regarding his inability to return to India due to persisting health problems and denial of the right to cross-examination.

Fugitive diamond merchant Mehul Chowksi on Wednesday approached the Bombay High Court over the non-consideration of his plea regarding his inability to return to India due to persisting health problems and denial of the right to cross-examination. Last month, Mehul Choksi moved a new application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court here, stating his long history of heart ailments and a blood clot in the brain. This comes after it was reported that the extradition process against embattled diamond jeweller Mehul Choksi has begun in Antigua. Choksi's counsel Vijay and Ashul Agarwal submitted his detailed medical history citing his ailments constraining him from travelling and hence leading to his inability to return to India. His counsel also placed 38 documents on record including the latest prescriptions in which doctors have highly recommend that Choksi should remain under continuous medical supervision in Antigua and should avoid travelling as his medical condition may deteriorate. Mehul Choksi and nephew Nirav Modi are kingpins of the Rs 13,000-crore Punjab National Bank fraud. They both fled from the country a year ago. Choksi was granted citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda on January 15, 2018.

Mehul Choksi moves Bombay High Court over non-consideration of plea on inability to return

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought a&nbsp;response from all the parties in connection with the ongoing indefinite strike by BEST employees here.

The high court asked all the parties to decide about the ongoing BEST strike till 11 am on Wednesday and inform the court about their decision.

The lawyer representing BEST also said that BEST is ready to give 10 step increments to employees which will be implemented from February 2019.

Mumbai's civic transport, comprising a workforce of 32,000 people, has been demanding the merger of BEST budget with 'A'&nbsp;budget of BMC.

They are also seeking resolution of the issue of employee service residences and recruitment. When the talks with the authorities failed, the employees resorted to the strike.

In the wake of the ongoing strike, locals in Mumbai are forced to bear the brunt of higher fares as they now have to opt for a private taxi or an auto-rickshaw to commute.

Moreover, rides to busy areas such as Churchgate, Lower Parel, BKC, Andheri, and Goregaon are costing more than the rest of the places.

BEST, the lifeline of Mumbai has a fleet size of as many as 3,200 buses. It the second largest transport system in the metropolis after local trains which ferry more than 70 lakh commuters on a daily basis.

 
&nbsp;

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought a response from all the parties in connection with the ongoing indefinite strike by BEST employees here. The high court asked all the parties to decide about the ongoing BEST strike till 11 am on Wednesday and inform the court about their decision.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought a response from all the parties in connection with the ongoing indefinite strike by BEST employees here. The high court asked all the parties to decide about the ongoing BEST strike till 11 am on Wednesday and inform the court about their decision. The lawyer representing BEST also said that BEST is ready to give 10 step increments to employees which will be implemented from February 2019. Mumbai's civic transport, comprising a workforce of 32,000 people, has been demanding the merger of BEST budget with 'A' budget of BMC. They are also seeking resolution of the issue of employee service residences and recruitment. When the talks with the authorities failed, the employees resorted to the strike. In the wake of the ongoing strike, locals in Mumbai are forced to bear the brunt of higher fares as they now have to opt for a private taxi or an auto-rickshaw to commute. Moreover, rides to busy areas such as Churchgate, Lower Parel, BKC, Andheri, and Goregaon are costing more than the rest of the places. BEST, the lifeline of Mumbai has a fleet size of as many as 3,200 buses. It the second largest transport system in the metropolis after local trains which ferry more than 70 lakh commuters on a daily basis.

BEST strike: Bombay High Court seeks response from all parties

Two lawyers who defended Ajmal Kasab in the 2008 Mumbai attack case on the directions of the Bombay High Court are yet to get their legal fees from the Maharashtra government.

While the state government says they have not submitted any bills, the lawyers say that state prosecutors are not supposed to.

The two lawyers -- Amin Solkar and Farhana Shah -- were tasked with defending Kasab, hanged to death on November 21, 2012 for killing over 166 people in Mumbai, by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Department after they were nominated by then acting Chief Justice of Bombay High Court J N Patel.

A notification about their appointment was issued on June 8, 2010 after Kasab had expressed his desire to contest the verdict of the trial court sentencing him to death in the Bombay High Court.&nbsp;

According to the notification, Solkar was to receive remuneration equivalent to what is sanctioned for a public prosecutor, who conducts a death confirmation appeal, and Shah was to receive fees on par with an assistant prosecutor.

Keeping in tradition with the fairness of the trial, the law allows for appointment of a lawyer from the legal services department if accused is unable to do so.

Solkar and Shah had argued for Kasab in the Bombay High Court against his death sentence almost on a day-to-day basis for nearly nine months before it confirmed the death sentence on the lone gunman, who sprayed bullets barbarically on November 26, 2008.&nbsp;

His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court a year later and he was hanged to death in 2012 inside the Yerwada prison in Pune.

When contacted by PTI, both Solkar and Shah said they are yet to receive their fees.

Both the lawyers said they had given the case priority as the high court was hearing it on a day-to-day basis from 11am to 5pm.&nbsp;

"I do not know why the state government has not made any efforts to pay us our fees. It has been seven years since the judgment was delivered by the high court. The Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty and Kasab is also dead. But we are still waiting (for the fees)," Solkar told.

He said he was contemplating legal action to get his dues cleared from the state government.

"We are only asking for what is legally due to us. The law says every accused should get a fair trial. To ensure this, we were appointed to defend Kasab... Then why this delay in paying us our fees," Solkar said.

Shah, on the other hand, says she has given up hopes that she will get her remuneration for appearing in the case.

"I have now given up. I consider it as a pro bono case (a case taken up voluntarily and without payment)," Shah, who had defended several accused in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts case, told.

While the exact amount per hearing was not known, sources in the know put the figure somewhere between Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,000 per day.

An official from the state government's law and judiciary department said the government would pay the fees only after the two lawyers submit their bills.

To this, both Solkar and Shah said the need to submit bills does not arise at all as they were appointed by the high court and a notification to this effect was issued by the government.

"Does the government ask for bills from the public prosecutor before giving them their remuneration?" Solkar said.

Abbas Kazmi, a lawyer who had defended Kasab before trial judge M L Tahalayani, claims he has been paid by the government for his services.

"My remuneration was given by the government soon after the completion of the trial," Kazmi said, adding he got his fees without having to submit any bills to the government.

Ten Pakistani terrorists had launched a dastardly attack on key locations in the city on the night of November 26, 2008. The terrorists killed 166 people and injured over 600 others.

The places that were attacked included the CST railway station in south Mumbai, the Taj Hotel and the Trident Hotel in south Mumbai, Cafe Leopold and Chabad House at Colaba in south Mumbai.

The attacks lasted three days. While nine of the terrorists were killed during the siege, Kasab was caught alive by the Mumbai police at Marine Drive in south Mumbai.&nbsp;

Two lawyers who defended Ajmal Kasab in the 2008 Mumbai attack case on the directions of the Bombay High Court are yet to get their legal fees from the Maharashtra government.

Two lawyers who defended Ajmal Kasab in the 2008 Mumbai attack case on the directions of the Bombay High Court are yet to get their legal fees from the Maharashtra government. While the state government says they have not submitted any bills, the lawyers say that state prosecutors are not supposed to. The two lawyers -- Amin Solkar and Farhana Shah -- were tasked with defending Kasab, hanged to death on November 21, 2012 for killing over 166 people in Mumbai, by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Department after they were nominated by then acting Chief Justice of Bombay High Court J N Patel. A notification about their appointment was issued on June 8, 2010 after Kasab had expressed his desire to contest the verdict of the trial court sentencing him to death in the Bombay High Court. According to the notification, Solkar was to receive remuneration equivalent to what is sanctioned for a public prosecutor, who conducts a death confirmation appeal, and Shah was to receive fees on par with an assistant prosecutor. Keeping in tradition with the fairness of the trial, the law allows for appointment of a lawyer from the legal services department if accused is unable to do so. Solkar and Shah had argued for Kasab in the Bombay High Court against his death sentence almost on a day-to-day basis for nearly nine months before it confirmed the death sentence on the lone gunman, who sprayed bullets barbarically on November 26, 2008. His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court a year later and he was hanged to death in 2012 inside the Yerwada prison in Pune. When contacted by PTI, both Solkar and Shah said they are yet to receive their fees. Both the lawyers said they had given the case priority as the high court was hearing it on a day-to-day basis from 11am to 5pm. "I do not know why the state government has not made any efforts to pay us our fees. It has been seven years since the judgment was delivered by the high court. The Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty and Kasab is also dead. But we are still waiting (for the fees)," Solkar told. He said he was contemplating legal action to get his dues cleared from the state government. "We are only asking for what is legally due to us. The law says every accused should get a fair trial. To ensure this, we were appointed to defend Kasab... Then why this delay in paying us our fees," Solkar said. Shah, on the other hand, says she has given up hopes that she will get her remuneration for appearing in the case. "I have now given up. I consider it as a pro bono case (a case taken up voluntarily and without payment)," Shah, who had defended several accused in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts case, told. While the exact amount per hearing was not known, sources in the know put the figure somewhere between Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,000 per day. An official from the state government's law and judiciary department said the government would pay the fees only after the two lawyers submit their bills. To this, both Solkar and Shah said the need to submit bills does not arise at all as they were appointed by the high court and a notification to this effect was issued by the government. "Does the government ask for bills from the public prosecutor before giving them their remuneration?" Solkar said. Abbas Kazmi, a lawyer who had defended Kasab before trial judge M L Tahalayani, claims he has been paid by the government for his services. "My remuneration was given by the government soon after the completion of the trial," Kazmi said, adding he got his fees without having to submit any bills to the government. Ten Pakistani terrorists had launched a dastardly attack on key locations in the city on the night of November 26, 2008. The terrorists killed 166 people and injured over 600 others. The places that were attacked included the CST railway station in south Mumbai, the Taj Hotel and the Trident Hotel in south Mumbai, Cafe Leopold and Chabad House at Colaba in south Mumbai. The attacks lasted three days. While nine of the terrorists were killed during the siege, Kasab was caught alive by the Mumbai police at Marine Drive in south Mumbai.

2008 Mumbai attacks: Lawyers who defended Ajmal Kasab in high court yet to get their fees

Yesteryear actor Moushumi Chatterjee Thursday approached the Bombay High Court seeking access to her comatose daughter and a direction to her son-in-law to let her attend to her daughter. 
 
Senior counsel Beni Chatterjee, appearing for the actor, mentioned the petition before a division bench of Justices B P Dharmadhikari and S V Kotwal.The bench posted it for hearing on Saturday. 
 
The court also directed Moushumi Chatterjee's son-in-law, Dicky Mehta, to file his affidavit in response to the petition. 
 
According to the actor's petition, Dicky and Payal got married in 2010 after which Payal suffered from a serious illness. 
 
Last year, Payal was admitted to a hospital where her mother and family members met her and took care of her, the plea said. 
 
A few months ago Mehta and his family got Payal, who is in a comatose state, discharged and have since been treating her at their residence in suburban Khar, it said. 
The actor has claimed that, thereafter, neither she nor any of her family members have been allowed to meet Payal.&nbsp;

Yesteryear actor Moushumi Chatterjee Thursday approached the Bombay High Court seeking access to her comatose daughter and a direction to her son-in-law to let her attend to her daughter.

Yesteryear actor Moushumi Chatterjee Thursday approached the Bombay High Court seeking access to her comatose daughter and a direction to her son-in-law to let her attend to her daughter. Senior counsel Beni Chatterjee, appearing for the actor, mentioned the petition before a division bench of Justices B P Dharmadhikari and S V Kotwal.The bench posted it for hearing on Saturday. The court also directed Moushumi Chatterjee's son-in-law, Dicky Mehta, to file his affidavit in response to the petition. According to the actor's petition, Dicky and Payal got married in 2010 after which Payal suffered from a serious illness. Last year, Payal was admitted to a hospital where her mother and family members met her and took care of her, the plea said. A few months ago Mehta and his family got Payal, who is in a comatose state, discharged and have since been treating her at their residence in suburban Khar, it said. The actor has claimed that, thereafter, neither she nor any of her family members have been allowed to meet Payal.

Moushumi Chatterjee moves HC for access to comatose daughter

The Bombay High Court Monday refused to stay framing of charges by the trial court against Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit and other accused persons in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. A bench of Justices S S Shinde and AS Gadkari, however, agreed to hear next month, a petition filed by Purohit, one of the seven accused in the case, challenging his prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

It directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) counsel Sandesh Patil to file a reply to Purohit’s plea by November 21, the next date of hearing.

The bench refused Purohit’s request for staying the proceedings in the trial court, noting that in the past, both the Supreme Court and the Bombay HC had passed orders directing the trial court to expedite the hearing in the case.

Framing of charges is a process after which the trial in a criminal case starts.

The trial court, the special NIA court in the present case, is scheduled to begin framing of charges against Purohit and other accused Tuesday. Six persons were killed and over a 100 injured when an explosive device strapped on a motorcycle went off near a mosque in Malegaon, a power loom town located about 200 km from here in North Maharashtra, on September 29, 2008.

Besides Purohit, the other accused case are Pragya Singh Thakur, Major (retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi and Sudhakar Chaturvedi. All of them will face trial under the UAPA since earlier this month, the special NIA court had rejected their pleas on the applicability of the anti-terror law against them.

On December 27 last year, the special NIA court had dismissed the pleas filed by Purohit, Thakur and the others seeking that they be discharged from the case.

Discharge is a pre-trial process in a criminal case.

At the time, the special court had dropped stringent charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against the accused, but had said they will face charges under the UAPA and other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder and criminal conspiracy.

Purohit, however, has argued through his counsel Shrikant Shivade that he cannot be prosecuted in the case since the sanction granted by the government to prosecute him was “wrong in law”.

A prior government sanction for Purohit’s prosecution was required since he was a serving army officer at the time of his arrest.

On January 17, 2009, such a sanction was issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Maharashtra home department.

Shivade, however, has maintained that under the UAPA, the state law and judiciary department, which is the sanctioning authority, has to constitute an appropriate authority and seek its report first.

In his case, the sanction was given in January 2009, but the authority was appointed only in October 2010, he has argued.

The sanction in Purohit’s case thus, was not valid under the UAPA, Shivade has maintained.

The Bombay High Court Monday refused to stay framing of charges by the trial court against Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit and other accused persons in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case.

The Bombay High Court Monday refused to stay framing of charges by the trial court against Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit and other accused persons in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. A bench of Justices S S Shinde and AS Gadkari, however, agreed to hear next month, a petition filed by Purohit, one of the seven accused in the case, challenging his prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) counsel Sandesh Patil to file a reply to Purohit’s plea by November 21, the next date of hearing. The bench refused Purohit’s request for staying the proceedings in the trial court, noting that in the past, both the Supreme Court and the Bombay HC had passed orders directing the trial court to expedite the hearing in the case. Framing of charges is a process after which the trial in a criminal case starts. The trial court, the special NIA court in the present case, is scheduled to begin framing of charges against Purohit and other accused Tuesday. Six persons were killed and over a 100 injured when an explosive device strapped on a motorcycle went off near a mosque in Malegaon, a power loom town located about 200 km from here in North Maharashtra, on September 29, 2008. Besides Purohit, the other accused case are Pragya Singh Thakur, Major (retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi and Sudhakar Chaturvedi. All of them will face trial under the UAPA since earlier this month, the special NIA court had rejected their pleas on the applicability of the anti-terror law against them. On December 27 last year, the special NIA court had dismissed the pleas filed by Purohit, Thakur and the others seeking that they be discharged from the case. Discharge is a pre-trial process in a criminal case. At the time, the special court had dropped stringent charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against the accused, but had said they will face charges under the UAPA and other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder and criminal conspiracy. Purohit, however, has argued through his counsel Shrikant Shivade that he cannot be prosecuted in the case since the sanction granted by the government to prosecute him was “wrong in law”. A prior government sanction for Purohit’s prosecution was required since he was a serving army officer at the time of his arrest. On January 17, 2009, such a sanction was issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Maharashtra home department. Shivade, however, has maintained that under the UAPA, the state law and judiciary department, which is the sanctioning authority, has to constitute an appropriate authority and seek its report first. In his case, the sanction was given in January 2009, but the authority was appointed only in October 2010, he has argued. The sanction in Purohit’s case thus, was not valid under the UAPA, Shivade has maintained.

Malegaon blast case: Bombay High Court declines to stay framing of charges against Lt Col Purohit

Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court has come out in support of the ongoing #MeToo movement currently <a href="http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/housefull-4-sajid-khan-steps-down-as-director-akshay-kumar-says-wont-work-with-proven-offenders-171068">sweeping the country's landscape</a>, saying the patriarchal world does not allow women to speak freely.

Justice Patel Thursday said he "fully supported" the women who had decided to share their experiences of sexual harassment and name their tormentors.

Speaking at an event organised by the women's wing of the Indian Merchants' Chamber in the city, Justice Patel cited the case of American actor and comedian Bill Cosby, who was convicted last month in a case of sexual assault that took place 14 years ago.

He said just as evidence was gathered and due process of law was followed by the authorities in Cosby's case, authorities in India also must ensure that the due legal process was followed in cases where women were naming their harassers and seeking action.

"I fully support women who are coming out and have the courage to speak because it takes lot of courage to speak at any time.

"Why women have not come forward is a very serious problem, and the reason is that because our world is so patriarchal and so biased that it does not allow our women to speak freely at times when they should or they could," he said.

"We now need to have a discussion on how we are going to get rid of this completely damaged, mocked system that we have of judging this cause," he said.

Though he steered clear of taking names or pointing out specific instances, Justice Patel said the judiciary was also plagued with "rampant sexism and the culture of patriarchy".

"This incessant bullying of women, no matter how competent they are is because they are women and this is the archetypal, nauseating patriarchy of our legal profession. It is not discussed, it happens everywhere.

"If I find a male lawyer trying to intimidate a female lawyer, I must never allow that to happen...The effort must be to strive towards gender neutrality," he said.

Justice Patel also used the occasion to draw one's attention to overburdened courts, another problem faced by the country's judiciary.

"By December 2019, eleven judges (of the Bombay High Court) will retire and there are only four names finalised by now. We are going to be in lot of trouble," he said.&nbsp;

Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court has come out in support of the ongoing #MeToo movement currently sweeping the country's landscape, saying the patriarchal world does not allow women to speak freely.

Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court has come out in support of the ongoing #MeToo movement currently sweeping the country's landscape, saying the patriarchal world does not allow women to speak freely. Justice Patel Thursday said he "fully supported" the women who had decided to share their experiences of sexual harassment and name their tormentors. Speaking at an event organised by the women's wing of the Indian Merchants' Chamber in the city, Justice Patel cited the case of American actor and comedian Bill Cosby, who was convicted last month in a case of sexual assault that took place 14 years ago. He said just as evidence was gathered and due process of law was followed by the authorities in Cosby's case, authorities in India also must ensure that the due legal process was followed in cases where women were naming their harassers and seeking action. "I fully support women who are coming out and have the courage to speak because it takes lot of courage to speak at any time. "Why women have not come forward is a very serious problem, and the reason is that because our world is so patriarchal and so biased that it does not allow our women to speak freely at times when they should or they could," he said. "We now need to have a discussion on how we are going to get rid of this completely damaged, mocked system that we have of judging this cause," he said. Though he steered clear of taking names or pointing out specific instances, Justice Patel said the judiciary was also plagued with "rampant sexism and the culture of patriarchy". "This incessant bullying of women, no matter how competent they are is because they are women and this is the archetypal, nauseating patriarchy of our legal profession. It is not discussed, it happens everywhere. "If I find a male lawyer trying to intimidate a female lawyer, I must never allow that to happen...The effort must be to strive towards gender neutrality," he said. Justice Patel also used the occasion to draw one's attention to overburdened courts, another problem faced by the country's judiciary. "By December 2019, eleven judges (of the Bombay High Court) will retire and there are only four names finalised by now. We are going to be in lot of trouble," he said.

#MeToo: Bombay High Court judge says judiciary plagued with 'rampant sexism'

Bombay High Court cancelled a molestation case that actress Preity Zinta had filed against her former boyfriend and business partner Ness Wadia in 2014.&nbsp; 
On Monday, the court had suggested Zinta to consider "finishing off" the case. 
 
Preity Zinta's advocate had told the court that the actor is willing to settle the matter if Ness Wadia is ready to apologise. Ness Wadia's lawyer had, however, said the industrialist had refused to apologise.&nbsp;

Wadia had, in fact, filed a petition asking the court to drop the case altogether, and the court had suggested the parties to settle the matter mutually.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Bombay High Court quashes molestation case against Ness Wadia filed by actor Preity Zinta against him in 2014. <a href="https://t.co/pmUOSpWWL3">pic.twitter.com/pmUOSpWWL3</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1049984593691070464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Just finish it off now," Justice Ranjit More had said on Monday.

The alleged incident had taken place at the Wankhede Stadium on May 30, 2014, during an Indian Premier League (IPL) match. Preity Zinta and Ness Wadia are co-owners of the Kings XI Punjab IPL team.

Bombay High Court cancelled a molestation case that actress Preity Zinta had filed against her former boyfriend and business partner Ness Wadia in 2014. On Monday, the court had suggested Zinta to consider "finishing off" the case.

Bombay High Court cancelled a molestation case that actress Preity Zinta had filed against her former boyfriend and business partner Ness Wadia in 2014. On Monday, the court had suggested Zinta to consider "finishing off" the case. Preity Zinta's advocate had told the court that the actor is willing to settle the matter if Ness Wadia is ready to apologise. Ness Wadia's lawyer had, however, said the industrialist had refused to apologise. Wadia had, in fact, filed a petition asking the court to drop the case altogether, and the court had suggested the parties to settle the matter mutually. Bombay High Court quashes molestation case against Ness Wadia filed by actor Preity Zinta against him in 2014. pic.twitter.com/pmUOSpWWL3 — ANI (@ANI) October 10, 2018 × "Just finish it off now," Justice Ranjit More had said on Monday. The alleged incident had taken place at the Wankhede Stadium on May 30, 2014, during an Indian Premier League (IPL) match. Preity Zinta and Ness Wadia are co-owners of the Kings XI Punjab IPL team.

Preity Zinta molestation case against Ness Wadia dropped by Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court on Friday allowed a 33-year-old woman from Nashik to end her 30-week pregnancy.

The woman had told the court that the medical reports of the foetus showed that it had developed schizencephaly — morbid condition incompatible with normal life often resulting in complete disability.

A woman from Nashik had approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission to terminate her 30-week pregnancy, saying that a test has revealed that the foetus has a rare developmental birth defect.

The 33-year-old woman had a five-year-old son diagnosed with Down Syndrome. She and her husband had approached the High Court saying that they are already caring for a child with an intellectual disability, and forcing them to continue with the pregnancy would cause them physical and emotional trauma.

In their plea, filed through advocate Kuldeep Nikam last week, they said another child with special needs would be a financial burden since the woman is a homemaker and the man runs a small business.

The doctors of JJ hospital examined the woman and approved abortion at this stage due to a birth defect of the foetus.

The division bench of the court, comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice AS Oka said, "As there is a substantial risk of physical abnormalities to the fetus, it is necessary to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner."

Advocate Kuldeep Nikam, the woman's lawyer, told the court that his client should be allowed to undergo the abortion in a private clinic in Nashik, as the doctors there are well aware of her case history. This, too, was approved by the court.&nbsp; 
 
(With inputs from ANI)

The Bombay High Court on Friday allowed a 33-year-old woman from Nashik to end her 30-week pregnancy. The woman had told the court that the medical reports of the foetus showed that it had developed schizencephaly — morbid condition incompatible with normal life often resulting in complete disability.

The Bombay High Court on Friday allowed a 33-year-old woman from Nashik to end her 30-week pregnancy. The woman had told the court that the medical reports of the foetus showed that it had developed schizencephaly — morbid condition incompatible with normal life often resulting in complete disability. A woman from Nashik had approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission to terminate her 30-week pregnancy, saying that a test has revealed that the foetus has a rare developmental birth defect. The 33-year-old woman had a five-year-old son diagnosed with Down Syndrome. She and her husband had approached the High Court saying that they are already caring for a child with an intellectual disability, and forcing them to continue with the pregnancy would cause them physical and emotional trauma. In their plea, filed through advocate Kuldeep Nikam last week, they said another child with special needs would be a financial burden since the woman is a homemaker and the man runs a small business. The doctors of JJ hospital examined the woman and approved abortion at this stage due to a birth defect of the foetus. The division bench of the court, comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice AS Oka said, "As there is a substantial risk of physical abnormalities to the fetus, it is necessary to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner." Advocate Kuldeep Nikam, the woman's lawyer, told the court that his client should be allowed to undergo the abortion in a private clinic in Nashik, as the doctors there are well aware of her case history. This, too, was approved by the court. (With inputs from ANI)

Bombay high court allows Nashik woman to terminate 30-week pregnancy

Yami Gautam has been busy prepping for her role in Uri, the Aditya Dhar film that is based on the Uri attacks of 2016. She has also simultaneously resumed her preparations for Batti Gul Meter Chaalu which recently resumed its shoot in Mumbai.&nbsp;

Yami plays a pivotal role in the film as a lawyer alongside Shahid Kapoor and the film also stars, Shraddha Kapoor. It is directed by Shree Narayan Singh and discusses the discrepancies of electric billing in small towns.&nbsp;

To prepare for her role, Yami went to the court recently to watch a vacation bench session taking place. After being informed by her lawyer friend on when the session will be held, she made way to the Bombay High court to see what happens in the proceedings and how the prosecution and defence fight for their viewpoint.&nbsp;

Batti Gul Meter Chalu addresses an issue that plagues many people across the country. As a result, there are various cases that are brought to court by unhappy consumers. Though these cases are against big companies, there is a lot of research that goes into becoming the prosecution for something like this.

Yami plays a pivotal role in the film as a lawyer

Yami Gautam has been busy prepping for her role in Uri, the Aditya Dhar film that is based on the Uri attacks of 2016. She has also simultaneously resumed her preparations for Batti Gul Meter Chaalu which recently resumed its shoot in Mumbai. Yami plays a pivotal role in the film as a lawyer alongside Shahid Kapoor and the film also stars, Shraddha Kapoor. It is directed by Shree Narayan Singh and discusses the discrepancies of electric billing in small towns. To prepare for her role, Yami went to the court recently to watch a vacation bench session taking place. After being informed by her lawyer friend on when the session will be held, she made way to the Bombay High court to see what happens in the proceedings and how the prosecution and defence fight for their viewpoint. Batti Gul Meter Chalu addresses an issue that plagues many people across the country. As a result, there are various cases that are brought to court by unhappy consumers. Though these cases are against big companies, there is a lot of research that goes into becoming the prosecution for something like this.

Yami Gautam heads to Bombay High Court for her next film 'Batti Gul Meter Chalu'

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant any relief to actors Ranveer Singh and Arjun Kapoor in the AIB Roast Case. An FIR had been lodged against them for doing comedy show AIB Knockout where the complainant alleged the show was &#39;vulgar&#39;, &#39;obscene&#39; and &#39;pornographic&#39; in nature. 
 
The court rejected the petition of both the actors and set April 3 as the next date of hearing in the case. 
 
The actors had filed a petition in the court and sought to quash the FIR&nbsp;registered by the police against them. 
 
In 2014, the actors were criticised after they used abusive and vulgar language during the live stage show.&nbsp; 
 
In 2015, AIB&#39;s Tanmay Bhat, Gursimran Khamba, Ashish Shakya and Rohan Joshi along with actor Deepika Padukone and filmmaker Karan Johar had approached the Bombay High Court asking for the FIR to be quashed. The court had directed the police to not take any coercive action like arrest against the petitioners. However, at that time Kapoor and Singh had not approached the court and it is only now that after being summoned by the Pune police that actors have sought legal action.

The actors had filed a petition in the court and sought to quash the FIR registered by the police against them.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant any relief to actors Ranveer Singh and Arjun Kapoor in the AIB Roast Case. An FIR had been lodged against them for doing comedy show AIB Knockout where the complainant alleged the show was 'vulgar', 'obscene' and 'pornographic' in nature. The court rejected the petition of both the actors and set April 3 as the next date of hearing in the case. The actors had filed a petition in the court and sought to quash the FIR registered by the police against them. In 2014, the actors were criticised after they used abusive and vulgar language during the live stage show. In 2015, AIB's Tanmay Bhat, Gursimran Khamba, Ashish Shakya and Rohan Joshi along with actor Deepika Padukone and filmmaker Karan Johar had approached the Bombay High Court asking for the FIR to be quashed. The court had directed the police to not take any coercive action like arrest against the petitioners. However, at that time Kapoor and Singh had not approached the court and it is only now that after being summoned by the Pune police that actors have sought legal action.

AIB Roast: Bombay HC refuses to grant relief to actors Ranveer Singh and Arjun Kapoor

&quot;No more &#39;tareekh pe tareekh&#39;. Enough is enough,&quot; an irked Bombay High Court said here while ruling out any more adjournments in a case, and imposed a fine of Rs 4.50 lakh on a public charitable trust for failing to file an affidavit since 2016.

Justice Gautam Patel last week passed the order directing &#39;Ram Nagar Trust&#39; to pay Rs 1,000 per day for the 450-day delay (Rs4.5 lakh in total) to the defendant in the suit filed by the trust in 2009.

The court noted that in September 2016, the high court had framed issue in the suit and directed both the plaintiff (trust) and the defendants to submit before the registry an affidavit of documents they would be relying on.

Last week when the suit came up before Justice Patel, the trust&#39;s lawyer sought a week&#39;s time to submit the same.

This was opposed by the defendants who claimed that time and again adjournments were being sought by the plaintiff trust.

Agreeing to this, Justice Patel in his order said, &quot;No more adjournments. No more &#39;tareekh pe tareekh&#39;. Enough is enough&quot;.

&quot;That a court will endlessly grant adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted. Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults and unexplained delay,&quot; Justice Patel said.

The famous dialogue &#39;tareekh pe tareekh&#39; from Bollywood movie &#39;Damini&#39; starring Sunny Deol has virtually become synonymous with the plight of litigants who have to wait for years and even decades for justice due to frequent delays in the judicial process.

Computing the delay from November 25, 2016 till date, the court said this was a period of around 450 days.

&quot;Computed at Rs 1000 per day for each day&#39;s delay for 450 days, the costs work out to Rs 4,50,000. This amount of Rs 4,50,000 will be paid to the first defendant as costs by 7th March 2018,&quot; the court said.

The court added that fixing random figures like Rs 5,000 or Rs 25,000 was counter-productive as parties think such costs are negligible.&nbsp;

&quot;The costs must be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these consequences are inevitable and unavoidable,&quot; Justice Patel said.&nbsp;

He refused to accept the contention of the plaintiff&#39;s lawyer that it was a charitable trust and that the suit pertained to land for educational purposes.&nbsp;

&quot;This is even more shocking. That a trust should be so utterly negligent about its own case is reason enough to warrant immediate action against the trustees and have every one of them removed. A public trust has a higher duty of care, not a lower one,&quot; the court said.

&quot;We will make exceptions for the poor, the illiterate, the helpless. They will receive our protection. But educated trustees charged with a solemn fiduciary duty will not get a free pass only because they claim to espouse some worthy cause,&quot; Justice Patel noted.

"No more 'tareekh pe tareekh'. Enough is enough," an irked Bombay HC said while ruling out adjournments in a case.

"No more 'tareekh pe tareekh'. Enough is enough," an irked Bombay High Court said here while ruling out any more adjournments in a case, and imposed a fine of Rs 4.50 lakh on a public charitable trust for failing to file an affidavit since 2016. Justice Gautam Patel last week passed the order directing 'Ram Nagar Trust' to pay Rs 1,000 per day for the 450-day delay (Rs4.5 lakh in total) to the defendant in the suit filed by the trust in 2009. The court noted that in September 2016, the high court had framed issue in the suit and directed both the plaintiff (trust) and the defendants to submit before the registry an affidavit of documents they would be relying on. Last week when the suit came up before Justice Patel, the trust's lawyer sought a week's time to submit the same. This was opposed by the defendants who claimed that time and again adjournments were being sought by the plaintiff trust. Agreeing to this, Justice Patel in his order said, "No more adjournments. No more 'tareekh pe tareekh'. Enough is enough". "That a court will endlessly grant adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted. Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults and unexplained delay," Justice Patel said. The famous dialogue 'tareekh pe tareekh' from Bollywood movie 'Damini' starring Sunny Deol has virtually become synonymous with the plight of litigants who have to wait for years and even decades for justice due to frequent delays in the judicial process. Computing the delay from November 25, 2016 till date, the court said this was a period of around 450 days. "Computed at Rs 1000 per day for each day's delay for 450 days, the costs work out to Rs 4,50,000. This amount of Rs 4,50,000 will be paid to the first defendant as costs by 7th March 2018," the court said. The court added that fixing random figures like Rs 5,000 or Rs 25,000 was counter-productive as parties think such costs are negligible. "The costs must be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these consequences are inevitable and unavoidable," Justice Patel said. He refused to accept the contention of the plaintiff's lawyer that it was a charitable trust and that the suit pertained to land for educational purposes. "This is even more shocking. That a trust should be so utterly negligent about its own case is reason enough to warrant immediate action against the trustees and have every one of them removed. A public trust has a higher duty of care, not a lower one," the court said. "We will make exceptions for the poor, the illiterate, the helpless. They will receive our protection. But educated trustees charged with a solemn fiduciary duty will not get a free pass only because they claim to espouse some worthy cause," Justice Patel noted.

No more tareekh pe tareekh: Bombay High Court judge tells lawyer against adjournment

Maharashtra government has submitted suggestions of names for the inquiry committee for the Kamala mills fire case. The names have been submitted to the Bombay High Court in a sealed cover. The High Court is expected to announce the name of the committee on March 19.&nbsp;

Last month, the Bombay High Court ordered setting up of a three-member committee to investigate the Kamala mills fire case. The committee is led by a retired high court judge.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KamalaMillsFire?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KamalaMillsFire</a> case: Maharashtra government has submitted suggestions of names for inquiry committee to Bombay High Court in a sealed cover. HC to announce the names of committee on 19th March
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/969162159828750336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Observing that such incidents should not repeat in the future, the high court said that setting up of a judicial committee was the domain of the state government.

A deadly fire tore through Kamala Mills complex on December 28 which claimed 14 lives. The majority of those killed were women attending a birthday party at a rooftop restaurant.

Last month, the Bombay High Court ordered setting up of a three-member committee to investigate the Kamala mills fire case

Maharashtra government has submitted suggestions of names for the inquiry committee for the Kamala mills fire case. The names have been submitted to the Bombay High Court in a sealed cover. The High Court is expected to announce the name of the committee on March 19. Last month, the Bombay High Court ordered setting up of a three-member committee to investigate the Kamala mills fire case. The committee is led by a retired high court judge. #KamalaMillsFire case: Maharashtra government has submitted suggestions of names for inquiry committee to Bombay High Court in a sealed cover. HC to announce the names of committee on 19th March — ANI (@ANI) March 1, 2018 × Observing that such incidents should not repeat in the future, the high court said that setting up of a judicial committee was the domain of the state government. A deadly fire tore through Kamala Mills complex on December 28 which claimed 14 lives. The majority of those killed were women attending a birthday party at a rooftop restaurant.

Kamala mills fire: Suggestions of names for inquiry committee submitted to Bombay High Court

The Bombay high court on Wednesday came down heavily on traffic policemen for talking on mobile phone while on duty, saying this amounts to gross misconduct and appropriate action should be taken against such personnel.

A division bench of justices S C Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said the court has witnessed several traffic constables, standing in corners of roads, talking on their mobile phone instead of manning vehicular movement, PTI report said.

&quot;At every nook and corner of the city, one can see these constables standing, playing or talking on their phone or (chatting) with each other. That seems to be their prime duty. The incidental duty is manning the traffic,&quot; it said.

According to news agency PTI, the court made the remarks while hearing a public interest litigation filed by traffic constable, Sunil Toke, alleging rampant corruption in the traffic police department.

The bench said, &quot;The traffic policemen are on the spot to man the traffic but now it seems we need someone to keep a watch on them to see if they are performing their duties. This is gross misconduct and dereliction of duty and appropriate action should be initiated.&quot;

The joint commissioner of traffic police and another senior official of the department today filed affidavits before the court in this regard.&nbsp;However, the bench said filing affidavits was not enough and that there has to be concrete change on the ground.

&quot;Sincere efforts have to be made to tackle the issue,&quot; the judges said.

The court said the mobile phone numbers of the joint commissioner of traffic police and a senior officer of the department should be publicised so that people can call and complain about bribe-taking and corruption.

The bench posted the petition for further hearing after four weeks and asked for a comprehensive affidavit to be filed by the joint commissioner of traffic police.&nbsp;

The court said the mobile phone numbers of the joint commissioner of traffic police and a senior officer of the department should be publicised so that people can call and complain about bribe-taking and corruption.

The Bombay high court on Wednesday came down heavily on traffic policemen for talking on mobile phone while on duty, saying this amounts to gross misconduct and appropriate action should be taken against such personnel. A division bench of justices S C Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said the court has witnessed several traffic constables, standing in corners of roads, talking on their mobile phone instead of manning vehicular movement, PTI report said. "At every nook and corner of the city, one can see these constables standing, playing or talking on their phone or (chatting) with each other. That seems to be their prime duty. The incidental duty is manning the traffic," it said. According to news agency PTI, the court made the remarks while hearing a public interest litigation filed by traffic constable, Sunil Toke, alleging rampant corruption in the traffic police department. The bench said, "The traffic policemen are on the spot to man the traffic but now it seems we need someone to keep a watch on them to see if they are performing their duties. This is gross misconduct and dereliction of duty and appropriate action should be initiated." The joint commissioner of traffic police and another senior official of the department today filed affidavits before the court in this regard. However, the bench said filing affidavits was not enough and that there has to be concrete change on the ground. "Sincere efforts have to be made to tackle the issue," the judges said. The court said the mobile phone numbers of the joint commissioner of traffic police and a senior officer of the department should be publicised so that people can call and complain about bribe-taking and corruption. The bench posted the petition for further hearing after four weeks and asked for a comprehensive affidavit to be filed by the joint commissioner of traffic police.

Mumbai HC raps traffic cops for chatting on cell phones while on duty

Bombay High court today lashed out at the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) lawyer demanding an explanation on whether &quot;the terrace was illegally occupied,&quot;.

&quot;How could you give a license to operate even an eating house at the premises?&quot; questioned the High Court.&nbsp;

Ex-senior policeman Julio Rebeirro previously filed a PIL in the case. The Bombay High Court&#39;s move came after Rebeirro&#39;s PIL was filed.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the BMC lawyer stated in their defence the fact that the eating joints had obtained permissions, &quot;by misrepresentation of facts with the help of some BMC officials and initially 12 BMC officials have been found at fault.&quot;

The lawyer further added that an inquiry has also been initiated by the Additional Municipal Commissioner against various BMC departments and officials &quot;to fix the responsibility and take action.&quot;

A deadly fire tore through Kamala Mills complex on December 28 claiming 14 lives. The majority of those killed were attending a birthday party at a rooftop restaurant.

Kamala Mills owner Ramesh Govani and Mojo&#39;s Bistro waiter Sayeed Ali are in judicial custody till February 12.&nbsp;

Five other accused -- Yug Tuli, Yug Pathak, Abhijit Mankar, Jigar Sanghvi and Kripesh Sanghvi -- were granted bail by a Mumbai court.&nbsp;

The BMC, in its reports, had confirmed that the fire started from Mojo&#39;s Bistro restaurant and spread rapidly to &#39;1 Above&#39;&nbsp;restaurant.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

'How could you give a license to operate even an eating house at the premises?' questioned the High Court

Bombay High court today lashed out at the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) lawyer demanding an explanation on whether "the terrace was illegally occupied,". "How could you give a license to operate even an eating house at the premises?" questioned the High Court. Ex-senior policeman Julio Rebeirro previously filed a PIL in the case. The Bombay High Court's move came after Rebeirro's PIL was filed. Meanwhile, the BMC lawyer stated in their defence the fact that the eating joints had obtained permissions, "by misrepresentation of facts with the help of some BMC officials and initially 12 BMC officials have been found at fault." The lawyer further added that an inquiry has also been initiated by the Additional Municipal Commissioner against various BMC departments and officials "to fix the responsibility and take action." A deadly fire tore through Kamala Mills complex on December 28 claiming 14 lives. The majority of those killed were attending a birthday party at a rooftop restaurant. Kamala Mills owner Ramesh Govani and Mojo's Bistro waiter Sayeed Ali are in judicial custody till February 12. Five other accused -- Yug Tuli, Yug Pathak, Abhijit Mankar, Jigar Sanghvi and Kripesh Sanghvi -- were granted bail by a Mumbai court. The BMC, in its reports, had confirmed that the fire started from Mojo's Bistro restaurant and spread rapidly to '1 Above' restaurant.

Kamala Mills fire: Was the terrace illegally occupied? Bombay High Court asks BMC

Pakistan national Asif Karadia is all of 52 years of which he has spent over 50 in India on a long-term visa but without a passport.

His wife and three children are Indian citizens, he pays taxes, has documents like Aadhaar card, ration card, PAN card and even voter ID card, and wants his application for Indian citizenship, pending for the last seven years, accepted.

Coming to the aid of Karadia, the Bombay High Court today asked the Maharashtra government to help him with his pending application for Indian citizenship.

A bench of justices R M Borde and Rajesh Ketkar asked the state government to file an affidavit in two weeks giving details of the procedure that Karadia has to follow to get his application processed.

Karadia told the court he was born in Karachi and brought to India by his mother when he was only a few days old and has lived here ever since, without a Pakistani passport. His parents, he said, were born in Gujarat before partition.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Karadia told the court he was born in Karachi and brought to India by his mother when he was only a few days old and has lived here ever since, without a Pakistani passport. His parents, he said, were born in Gujarat before partition</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Karadia told the court he was born in Karachi and brought to India by his mother when he was only a few days old and has lived here ever since, without a Pakistani passport. His parents, he said, were born in Gujarat before partition" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Karadia, who works at a restaurant, said his citizenship application was pending with the Union government for over seven years now.

He approached the high court through his lawyers Ashish Mehta and Sujay Kantawala to seek a stay on the deportation notice against him. He also prayed for his long-term visa to be extended till the government decided on his application for Indian citizenship.

In 2016, another bench of the court had denied him any interim relief, observing that even if a person is entitled to Indian citizenship, he or she cannot &quot;at any given time, be authorised to reside in the country without valid papers&quot;.

The bench had also ordered an inquiry into how the central government has been issuing him long term visa for so many years when Karadia does not have a passport.

In January 2017, a division bench led by Justice S C Dharmadhikari observed that Karadia&#39;s case was &quot;unique&quot;, and in an interim order, directed the state and the Centre not to take any coercive action against him.

Yesterday, the bench led by Justice Borde took note of the submission by Karadia&#39;s lawyers that the authorities were making him run from pillar to post for the last several years and not deciding on his citizenship application.

Justice Borde directed the state to submit a timeline of the documents it had forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs to help process Karadia&#39;s application.&nbsp;

The Bombay High Court asked the Maharashtra government to help Asif Karadia with his pending application for Indian citizenship

Pakistan national Asif Karadia is all of 52 years of which he has spent over 50 in India on a long-term visa but without a passport. His wife and three children are Indian citizens, he pays taxes, has documents like Aadhaar card, ration card, PAN card and even voter ID card, and wants his application for Indian citizenship, pending for the last seven years, accepted. Coming to the aid of Karadia, the Bombay High Court today asked the Maharashtra government to help him with his pending application for Indian citizenship. A bench of justices R M Borde and Rajesh Ketkar asked the state government to file an affidavit in two weeks giving details of the procedure that Karadia has to follow to get his application processed. Karadia told the court he was born in Karachi and brought to India by his mother when he was only a few days old and has lived here ever since, without a Pakistani passport. His parents, he said, were born in Gujarat before partition. Karadia told the court he was born in Karachi and brought to India by his mother when he was only a few days old and has lived here ever since, without a Pakistani passport. His parents, he said, were born in Gujarat before partition × Karadia, who works at a restaurant, said his citizenship application was pending with the Union government for over seven years now. He approached the high court through his lawyers Ashish Mehta and Sujay Kantawala to seek a stay on the deportation notice against him. He also prayed for his long-term visa to be extended till the government decided on his application for Indian citizenship. In 2016, another bench of the court had denied him any interim relief, observing that even if a person is entitled to Indian citizenship, he or she cannot "at any given time, be authorised to reside in the country without valid papers". The bench had also ordered an inquiry into how the central government has been issuing him long term visa for so many years when Karadia does not have a passport. In January 2017, a division bench led by Justice S C Dharmadhikari observed that Karadia's case was "unique", and in an interim order, directed the state and the Centre not to take any coercive action against him. Yesterday, the bench led by Justice Borde took note of the submission by Karadia's lawyers that the authorities were making him run from pillar to post for the last several years and not deciding on his citizenship application. Justice Borde directed the state to submit a timeline of the documents it had forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs to help process Karadia's application.

High court asks Maharashtra to help Pakistan man living in India for 50 years minus passport

The Bombay high court on&nbsp;Thursday slammed rightist group for asking ban on&nbsp;Sanjay Leela directed Padmavati and sending death threats to&nbsp;artists on Thursday.

Referring to the threats made to them, a bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said that it was distressing to know that a person makes a feature film and several people work tirelessly towards it but are not able to release it because of continued threats.

The bench further asked that &ldquo;In which other country do you see threats given to artists and performers? What have we come to?&rdquo;&nbsp;

The court also emphasized that this was censorship of a different kind and it is damaging India&rsquo;s image.

Judges added that &ldquo;In this country, we have come to a situation where people cannot voice their opinions. Every time a person says he or she wants to voice their opinion, somebody or a fringe group says they would not allow it. This does not augur well for the state.&rdquo;&nbsp;

&ldquo;What concerns us is India&rsquo;s image and reputation as a democratic country. We are the largest democracy. We cannot take pride in the happenings of such incidents a day in and day out. We are cutting a very sorry figure,&rdquo; the judges said.

Judge also stressed on the fact that if this is happening to well-financed people and what would happen to the poor?

The strong remarks were made while the judges were hearing a petition filed by family members of Dabholkar and Pansare.&nbsp;

Family members of Dabholkar and Pansare seeking court Supervision on the murder probe of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare.

The court also slammed CBI and CID for not arresting the main suspects of the murder of Dabholkar who was killed in 2013 and Pansare who was killed in 2015.

&quot;We cannot allow such serious matters to linger for years. We cannot allow constitutional rights to be taken away. Enough damage has been caused already. Has any senior official from the two agencies bothered to find out why the probe is not getting any head away?&quot; the court asked.

The case has now been posted for next hearing on December 21.

According to reports, Padmavati may release in February after its producers decided to postpone the movie.

It is distressing to know that a person makes a feature film and several people work tirelessly towards it but are not able to release the film because of continued threats, Court said

The Bombay high court on Thursday slammed rightist group for asking ban on Sanjay Leela directed Padmavati and sending death threats to artists on Thursday. Referring to the threats made to them, a bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said that it was distressing to know that a person makes a feature film and several people work tirelessly towards it but are not able to release it because of continued threats. The bench further asked that “In which other country do you see threats given to artists and performers? What have we come to?” The court also emphasized that this was censorship of a different kind and it is damaging India’s image. Judges added that “In this country, we have come to a situation where people cannot voice their opinions. Every time a person says he or she wants to voice their opinion, somebody or a fringe group says they would not allow it. This does not augur well for the state.” “What concerns us is India’s image and reputation as a democratic country. We are the largest democracy. We cannot take pride in the happenings of such incidents a day in and day out. We are cutting a very sorry figure,” the judges said. Judge also stressed on the fact that if this is happening to well-financed people and what would happen to the poor? The strong remarks were made while the judges were hearing a petition filed by family members of Dabholkar and Pansare. Family members of Dabholkar and Pansare seeking court Supervision on the murder probe of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare. The court also slammed CBI and CID for not arresting the main suspects of the murder of Dabholkar who was killed in 2013 and Pansare who was killed in 2015. "We cannot allow such serious matters to linger for years. We cannot allow constitutional rights to be taken away. Enough damage has been caused already. Has any senior official from the two agencies bothered to find out why the probe is not getting any head away?" the court asked. The case has now been posted for next hearing on December 21. According to reports, Padmavati may release in February after its producers decided to postpone the movie.

Bombay High Court slams  rightist group seeking ban on Padmavati

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear a plea filed by the Maharashtra Government, challenging the acquittal of Bollywood actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case.

On July 5, 2016, the apex court admitted the Maharashtra Government&#39;s plea, challenging the Bombay High Court&#39;s verdict.

In December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan of all criminal charges on account of lack of substantial evidence in the case.

On May 6, 2015, a sessions court had held him guilty in the case, but Khan moved the High Court, challenging the verdict.

The Bollywood actor was accused of running his Toyota Land Cruiser over people sleeping on a sidewalk outside a bakery in Mumbai&#39;s Bandra on September 28, 2002.

One labourer died, while four others were injured in the accident.

In December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan of all criminal charges on account of lack of substantial evidence in the case.

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear a plea filed by the Maharashtra Government, challenging the acquittal of Bollywood actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case. On July 5, 2016, the apex court admitted the Maharashtra Government's plea, challenging the Bombay High Court's verdict. In December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan of all criminal charges on account of lack of substantial evidence in the case. On May 6, 2015, a sessions court had held him guilty in the case, but Khan moved the High Court, challenging the verdict. The Bollywood actor was accused of running his Toyota Land Cruiser over people sleeping on a sidewalk outside a bakery in Mumbai's Bandra on September 28, 2002. One labourer died, while four others were injured in the accident.

Supreme Court to hear plea challenging Salman Khan's acquittal in hit-and-run case today

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) called off its five-day strike on Saturday, ANI reported, after a meeting of their core committee.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Maharashtra: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MSRTCstrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MSRTCstrike</a> called off late last night, bus operations have resumed; visuals from Mumbai&#39;s Parel station depot. <a href="https://t.co/sS7vbschu2">pic.twitter.com/sS7vbschu2</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/921565245868425216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

MSRTC employees had gone on indefinite strike on October 17 demanding implementation of the 7th pay commission.

The Bombay High Court had on Friday called the strike illegal.&nbsp;

The court had also observed that the state government was taking no concrete steps to end the strike.&nbsp;

ANI reported that after that, the state government submitted an undertaking before the court that it was ready to constitute a high-powered committee to look into the issue. And that the committee would submit its&nbsp;report within three weeks.

More than 17,000 MSRTC buses ply in Maharashtra, and about one lakh of its employees had gone on strike.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation employees had gone on indefinite strike on October 17 demanding implementation of the 7th pay commission

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) called off its five-day strike on Saturday, ANI reported, after a meeting of their core committee. Maharashtra: #MSRTCstrike called off late last night, bus operations have resumed; visuals from Mumbai's Parel station depot. pic.twitter.com/sS7vbschu2 — ANI (@ANI) October 21, 2017 × MSRTC employees had gone on indefinite strike on October 17 demanding implementation of the 7th pay commission. The Bombay High Court had on Friday called the strike illegal. The court had also observed that the state government was taking no concrete steps to end the strike. ANI reported that after that, the state government submitted an undertaking before the court that it was ready to constitute a high-powered committee to look into the issue. And that the committee would submit its report within three weeks. More than 17,000 MSRTC buses ply in Maharashtra, and about one lakh of its employees had gone on strike.

After high court says it is 'illegal', MSRTC calls off five-day strike

The Bombay high court has asked the Maharashtra Government to file an affidavit within two&nbsp;weeks, justifying its decision to&nbsp;release&nbsp;actor Sanjay Dutt early from prison.

The direction was given on a public interest litigation filed by Pune resident Pradeep Bhalekar, challenging the regular paroles and furloughs granted to the actor&nbsp;when he was serving his sentence.

In the last hearing, the high court had asked the government to explain the parameters that were considered and the procedures followed while deciding that Sanjay Dutt deserved leniency.

Sanjay Dutt was released in February 2016, eight months early, on account of his good conduct while in Yerwada prison.

Prajakta Shinde prosecutor told the high court that the affidavit will be presented by the state Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni.

Sanjay Dutt was accused of possession of arms, which were a part of the consignment used in the blast that shook Mumbai on March 12,&nbsp;1993, claiming the lives of 257 people.

The actor&nbsp;spent about 18 months in jail between 1994 and 1995 during the investigation and the marathon trial.

He also spent a few weeks in prison in 2007 after being sentenced to six years imprisonment under the Arms Act and a fine of Rs 25,000 by a court in Maharashtra.

Sanjay Dutt surrendered in May 2013 after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction.

In 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 5 years, as the actor surrendered to serve the remainder of his sentence.

From his imprisonment to his release in February 2016, Sanjay Dutt&nbsp;was granted parole for about 120 days collectively.&nbsp;

Maharashtra Government to file an affidavit within 2?weeks to justify their decision of releasing actor Sanjay Dutt early

The Bombay high court has asked the Maharashtra Government to file an affidavit within two weeks, justifying its decision to release actor Sanjay Dutt early from prison. The direction was given on a public interest litigation filed by Pune resident Pradeep Bhalekar, challenging the regular paroles and furloughs granted to the actor when he was serving his sentence. In the last hearing, the high court had asked the government to explain the parameters that were considered and the procedures followed while deciding that Sanjay Dutt deserved leniency. Sanjay Dutt was released in February 2016, eight months early, on account of his good conduct while in Yerwada prison. Prajakta Shinde prosecutor told the high court that the affidavit will be presented by the state Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni. Sanjay Dutt was accused of possession of arms, which were a part of the consignment used in the blast that shook Mumbai on March 12, 1993, claiming the lives of 257 people. The actor spent about 18 months in jail between 1994 and 1995 during the investigation and the marathon trial. He also spent a few weeks in prison in 2007 after being sentenced to six years imprisonment under the Arms Act and a fine of Rs 25,000 by a court in Maharashtra. Sanjay Dutt surrendered in May 2013 after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. In 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 5 years, as the actor surrendered to serve the remainder of his sentence. From his imprisonment to his release in February 2016, Sanjay Dutt was granted parole for about 120 days collectively.

High court asks Maharashtra govt to explain Sanjay Dutt's early release from prison

In what could spell fresh trouble for Sanjay Dutt, the Bombay High Court Monday asked the Maharashtra government to justify its decision to grant the actor early release from prison in the 1993 serial blasts case.

A division bench of justices R M Sawant and Sadhana Jadhav was today hearing a public interest litigation by Pune resident Pradeep Bhalekar challenging the regular paroles and furloughs granted to the actor when he was serving his sentence.

The court then directed the state government to file an affidavit stating what parameters were considered and the procedures followed while deciding that Sanjay Dutt deserved leniency.

&quot;Was the DIG, Prisons, consulted or did the jail superintendent directly send his recommendation to the governor?&quot; Justice Sawant asked.

&quot;Also, how did the authorities assess that Dutt&#39;s conduct was good? When did they get the time to make such assessment when he was out on parole half the time?&quot; he asked.

Dutt was earlier sentenced to five years in jail for possession of arms, which were a part of the consignment used in the 1993 blasts. 
 
The actor, who was on bail during the trial, had surrendered in May 2013 after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction.

Dutt was let out in February 2016, eight months early, on account of his good conduct while in Pune&#39;s Yerwada prison.

The court will further hear the matter after one week.

During the investigation and the marathon trial, Dutt spent 18 months in jail.

On July 31, 2007, the TADA court in Mumbai sentenced him to six years&#39; rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000.

In 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling but reduced the sentence to five years following which he surrendered to serve the remainder of his sentence.

During his imprisonment, Dutt was granted parole of 90 days in December 2013 and later again for 30 days.

(PTI)

The Bombay High Court was hearing a PIL challenging the regular paroles and furloughs granted to the actor when he was in jail

In what could spell fresh trouble for Sanjay Dutt, the Bombay High Court Monday asked the Maharashtra government to justify its decision to grant the actor early release from prison in the 1993 serial blasts case. A division bench of justices R M Sawant and Sadhana Jadhav was today hearing a public interest litigation by Pune resident Pradeep Bhalekar challenging the regular paroles and furloughs granted to the actor when he was serving his sentence. The court then directed the state government to file an affidavit stating what parameters were considered and the procedures followed while deciding that Sanjay Dutt deserved leniency. "Was the DIG, Prisons, consulted or did the jail superintendent directly send his recommendation to the governor?" Justice Sawant asked. "Also, how did the authorities assess that Dutt's conduct was good? When did they get the time to make such assessment when he was out on parole half the time?" he asked. Dutt was earlier sentenced to five years in jail for possession of arms, which were a part of the consignment used in the 1993 blasts. The actor, who was on bail during the trial, had surrendered in May 2013 after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Dutt was let out in February 2016, eight months early, on account of his good conduct while in Pune's Yerwada prison. The court will further hear the matter after one week. During the investigation and the marathon trial, Dutt spent 18 months in jail. On July 31, 2007, the TADA court in Mumbai sentenced him to six years' rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000. In 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling but reduced the sentence to five years following which he surrendered to serve the remainder of his sentence. During his imprisonment, Dutt was granted parole of 90 days in December 2013 and later again for 30 days. (PTI)

How did authorities assess Sanjay Dutt's conduct was good? High Court asks govt

The Bombay high court recently granted bail to three of 21 persons accused of the murder of a Muslim man, saying they were provoked to &quot;kill in the name of... religion&quot; and that the court&nbsp;considered that &quot;factor in favour of the accused&quot;, the Indian Express newspaper reported on Tuesday.

The Indian Express reported that Mohsin Shaikh, 28, was murdered in June 2014, allegedly by members of the Hindu Rashtra Sena.

In her January 12 order, the Indian Express said, Justice Mridula Bhatkar said that &quot;the fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the applicants/ accused. Moreover, the applicants/ accused do not have any criminal record and it appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder.&quot;&nbsp;

Mohsin was killed in Pune on the night of January 2, 2014, by a gang of men reportedly protesting derogatory pictures and posts about the Maratha hero Shivaji put up on Facebook. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The men were armed with hockey sticks and wooden batons.&nbsp;

In their chargesheet, based on testimony from two eyewitnesses, police had said the HRS men had gathered at Gondhale Mala at about 8.30 pm on June 2, 2014.

While gathered, the HRS men began to talk of what their leader -- Dhananjay Desai -- had said earlier. &quot;... that Muslims should be thrashed for posting derogatory pictures of Shivaji Maharaj on Facebook. Their vehicles, shops should be damaged.&quot;

Shaikh was at the time returning home along&nbsp;with a friend, Riyaz Ahmed.

The gathered men attacked them.

DNA reported that the assailants left their motorcycles and weapons at the murder scene, which is how the police were able to identify them.

The Indian Express report said Mohsin&#39;s family would challenge the order in the Supreme Court.

The Express added that the Maharashtra government too might challenge the order.&nbsp;

Of the 21 persons accused, 14 have been granted bail so far.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/bhcj1-20170117092510.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The Bombay high court judgement, page 1 (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/bhcj2-20170117092820.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The judgement, page 2 (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/bhcj3-20170117092924.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The judgement, page 4 (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/bhcj5-20170117093159.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The judgement, page 5 (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/bhcj6-20170117093237.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The judgement, page 6 (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

(WION) 
&nbsp;

'It appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder,' the Bombay high court judge said

The Bombay high court recently granted bail to three of 21 persons accused of the murder of a Muslim man, saying they were provoked to "kill in the name of... religion" and that the court considered that "factor in favour of the accused", the Indian Express newspaper reported on Tuesday. The Indian Express reported that Mohsin Shaikh, 28, was murdered in June 2014, allegedly by members of the Hindu Rashtra Sena. In her January 12 order, the Indian Express said, Justice Mridula Bhatkar said that "the fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the applicants/ accused. Moreover, the applicants/ accused do not have any criminal record and it appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder." Mohsin was killed in Pune on the night of January 2, 2014, by a gang of men reportedly protesting derogatory pictures and posts about the Maratha hero Shivaji put up on Facebook. The men were armed with hockey sticks and wooden batons. In their chargesheet, based on testimony from two eyewitnesses, police had said the HRS men had gathered at Gondhale Mala at about 8.30 pm on June 2, 2014. While gathered, the HRS men began to talk of what their leader -- Dhananjay Desai -- had said earlier. "... that Muslims should be thrashed for posting derogatory pictures of Shivaji Maharaj on Facebook. Their vehicles, shops should be damaged." Shaikh was at the time returning home along with a friend, Riyaz Ahmed. The gathered men attacked them. DNA reported that the assailants left their motorcycles and weapons at the murder scene, which is how the police were able to identify them. The Indian Express report said Mohsin's family would challenge the order in the Supreme Court. The Express added that the Maharashtra government too might challenge the order. Of the 21 persons accused, 14 have been granted bail so far. The Bombay high court judgement, page 1 (WION) × The judgement, page 2 (WION) × The judgement, page 4 (WION) × The judgement, page 5 (WION) × The judgement, page 6 (WION) × (WION)

India: Court gives bail to 3 accused of murder, says were provoked to kill in name of religion

The Bombay High Court in the western Maharashtra state of India said today that ban imposed on entry&nbsp;to inner area of women to Haji Ali Dargah is &quot;contrary to the fundamental rights of a person as provided in the Indian constitution&quot;.&nbsp; 
 
Responding to a petition filed by a women&#39;s group on June 28, the court in a landmark order said that women should be permitted to the sanctum sanctorum of the shrine.&nbsp; 
 
Zakia Soman and Noorjehan Niaz had filed the public interest litigation (PIL), which stated that gender justice was inherent in holy book Quran and the decision to ban the entry to the shrine contravened the Hadiths (&nbsp;one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad) that stated there was no prohibition on women visiting graves. 
 
&quot;Very happy. This is a great step towards justice for Muslim women,&quot; Zakia said after the court ruling.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;
<div class="twitter-block">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FLASH?src=hash">#FLASH</a> Haji Ali Dargah women entry case: Women allowed in inner sanctum
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/769045988803768320">August 26, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
 
The Haji Ali Dargah trust that runs the shrine, however, wants to appeal the decision in India&#39;s apex court. Consequently, today&#39;s verdict has been put on hold for six weeks.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;High Court should not have interfered but now that they have given a decision against us we will approach Supreme Court,&quot;&nbsp;All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) political party leader Haji Rafat.&nbsp; 
 
The ban was imposed last year after a resolution was imposed by the trust last year.&nbsp; 
 
Meanwhile, the state government had earlier told the court that women should be barred from entering the inner sanctorum of the dargah only if it was so enshrined in the Quran. &quot;The ban on women&#39;s entry cannot be justified on the basis of an expert&#39;s interpretation of the Quran,&quot; argued advocate general Shrihari Aney. 
 
On whether the court could interfere in the customs and traditions of a religion, Aney said, &quot;If the religion (Islam) is going to fall by allowing women the entry, then the ban should prevail over fundamental rights.&quot; 
 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

The landmark court ruling, however, has been put on hold for six weeks. It would be challenged by the shrine's trust in India's apex court

The Bombay High Court in the western Maharashtra state of India said today that ban imposed on entry to inner area of women to Haji Ali Dargah is "contrary to the fundamental rights of a person as provided in the Indian constitution". Responding to a petition filed by a women's group on June 28, the court in a landmark order said that women should be permitted to the sanctum sanctorum of the shrine. Zakia Soman and Noorjehan Niaz had filed the public interest litigation (PIL), which stated that gender justice was inherent in holy book Quran and the decision to ban the entry to the shrine contravened the Hadiths ( one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad) that stated there was no prohibition on women visiting graves. "Very happy. This is a great step towards justice for Muslim women," Zakia said after the court ruling. #FLASH Haji Ali Dargah women entry case: Women allowed in inner sanctum — ANI (@ANI_news) August 26, 2016 The Haji Ali Dargah trust that runs the shrine, however, wants to appeal the decision in India's apex court. Consequently, today's verdict has been put on hold for six weeks. "High Court should not have interfered but now that they have given a decision against us we will approach Supreme Court," All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) political party leader Haji Rafat. The ban was imposed last year after a resolution was imposed by the trust last year. Meanwhile, the state government had earlier told the court that women should be barred from entering the inner sanctorum of the dargah only if it was so enshrined in the Quran. "The ban on women's entry cannot be justified on the basis of an expert's interpretation of the Quran," argued advocate general Shrihari Aney. On whether the court could interfere in the customs and traditions of a religion, Aney said, "If the religion (Islam) is going to fall by allowing women the entry, then the ban should prevail over fundamental rights." (WION with inputs from agencies)

Ban on women's access to India's Haji Ali shrine 'unconstitutional': Bombay High Court

bombay-high-court

Bombay High Court, News on Bombay High Court, stories on Bombay High Court, articles on Bombay High Court, Bombay High Court stories at Wion, Bombay High Court news, Bombay High Court latest news

bombay high-court