According to reports by LiveLaw, Navlakha had approached the High Court challenging a condition of his bail that restricted him to the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai without prior permission of the special NIA court. He argued that continuing to reside in Mumbai—away from his family, home, and support system in Delhi—had become financially unsustainable, especially as the trial in the case has yet to commence, as reported by The Hindu.

When the matter was taken up, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), placed before the court a set of conditions that could be imposed if Navlakha were allowed to shift to Delhi. According to LiveLaw, these included depositing his passport, not leaving Delhi without the special court’s permission, reporting to the local police station every Saturday, and appearing before the special NIA court in Mumbai whenever directed. The bench accepted these conditions on record and indicated that a formal order permitting the relocation would be passed.

Brief about the previous proceedings

Senior advocate Yug Chaudhary, representing Navlakha, emphasised that the 73-year-old activist has been living in rented accommodation in Mumbai for nearly two years since being granted bail in 2023. As per Bar and Bench, Chaudhary told the court that Navlakha is a long-time resident of Delhi, owns a house there, and had lived there with his partner prior to his arrest. He also pointed out the difficulties Navlakha and his partner faced in securing accommodation in Mumbai due to the pendency of the case. With the trial nowhere in sight, Chaudhary warned that forcing Navlakha to remain in Mumbai could push him into financial ruin.

The defence assured the court that Navlakha would strictly comply with all conditions and attend proceedings whenever required. While suggesting that certain appearances could be made through video conferencing from the NIA office in Delhi, the bench made it clear—according to LiveLaw—that it was not inclined to allow participation in the trial from Delhi. However, it expressed openness to permitting him to stay in the capital until the trial formally begins.

The NIA opposed the plea, arguing that granting such relief could set an undesirable precedent, since several other accused in the case are also not residents of Mumbai and may seek similar permissions. Despite this, the bench noted that there had been no allegation or instance of Navlakha attempting to abscond or misuse his liberty. On December 15, the judges had observed that Navlakha appeared to feel “completely uprooted” from his social circle, friends, and family, and emphasised that he was a free person while on bail.

As reported by The Hindu, the court observed that forcing an accused to remain away from his home indefinitely, especially when the trial has not begun, raises concerns of fairness. “The applicant feels that he is forced to stay in Mumbai when his house is in Delhi. He has assured that he will come back to Mumbai when the trial begins,” the bench noted, adding that Navlakha’s conduct while on bail had been unblemished.

Navlakha had earlier approached the High Court after a special NIA court rejected his request on June 19 to relocate to Delhi. Under his existing bail conditions, he was required to remain within Mumbai’s jurisdiction, making any relocation subject to court approval

Background of the case

Navlakha is among 16 individuals arrested in connection with the violence that broke out on January 1, 2018, at Bhima Koregaon village near Pune, during commemorations marking the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon. The violence followed the Elgar Parishad conclave held a day earlier at Pune’s Shaniwar Wada. The prosecution alleges that speeches and activities linked to the conclave incited violence and promoted Maoist ideology. Navlakha, a long-time civil liberties advocate, has been accused of acting as a co-conspirator and of propagating Maoist ideology under the directions of leaders of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist)—allegations he has consistently denied.

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.

Why is this significant?

With the High Court now relaxing the restrictive bail condition, the order should be seen as a reaffirmation that bail conditions must not be so onerous as to become punitive, particularly when trials are indefinitely delayed. The order underscores the principle that conditions of bail must balance the interests of investigation and trial with the accused’s right to dignity, livelihood, and family life, especially in cases where incarceration has already been prolonged and the commencement of trial remains uncertain. The court’s emphasis on Navlakha’s age, financial precarity, clean conduct while on bail, and absence of flight risk reflects a growing judicial recognition that bail jurisprudence cannot be reduced to mechanical territorial restrictions. Instead, it must account for proportionality and the lived realities of undertrial accused, particularly in long-running UAPA prosecutions where delays have become endemic.

Related:

Gautam Navlakha’s letter on release from custody

Unjust detention: Gautam Navlakha’s bail victory highlights insufficient evidence

Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha granted bail by the Bombay HC

Take accused Gautam Navlakha to hospital immediately, SC directs NIA

Taloja Jail denies new spectacles to visually challenged Gautam Navlakha!

The post Bombay High Court allows Gautam Navlakha to return to Delhi, relaxes restrictive bail condition in Bhima Koregaon Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Somnath Suryawanshi was arrested in December 2024 for allegedly participating in protests and riots that erupted in Parbhani district on December 11, following the desecration of a replica of the Indian Constitution. A resident of Pune and a student at a law college in Parbhani, Somnath was taken into custody and, after a brief remand, shifted to judicial custody. He died on December 15, allegedly as a result of injuries sustained from police torture during his time in lock-up.

Mother’s plea ignored for months

His mother, 60-year-old Vijayabai Venkat Suryawanshi, has been waging a determined legal battle since December 18, 2024, when she filed a formal complaint demanding registration of an FIR against the officers responsible for her son’s death. In her statement, Vijayabai recalled receiving a phone call informing her that Somnath had died of a “heart attack.” But what followed only deepened her suspicion.

While she was en-route to Parbhani, officials told her the body had already been shifted to the Aurangabad Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). On the way, she was intercepted by the Parbhani police and taken to the SP’s office, where she alleges a senior officer told her: “We didn’t kill your son. He died of a heart attack. We can help you. If you take the body, we’ll offer police training to one of your sons.” 

She refused the offer and proceeded to Aurangabad, where a post-mortem was conducted. Social activists at the hospital informed her that the autopsy indicated multiple injuries consistent with custodial torture — contradicting the state’s version of a natural death due to illness.

Bombay HC recognises prima facie brutality

On July 4, 2025, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, acknowledging “prima facie material indicating custodial brutality and violation of constitutional rights”, directed the police to register an FIR within a week. However, the Mahayuti-led Maharashtra government under Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis failed to comply. Instead, the state challenged the order before the Supreme Court. The apex court, however, upheld the High Court’s directive on July 30, observing that the FIR was not optional but necessary for enabling an impartial criminal investigation.

As per the report of The Statesman, the Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, clarified that registration of an FIR should not be interpreted as assigning guilt but as initiating a fair investigation under the law.

Presented facts and successfully argued in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for Vijaybai Vyankat Suryawanshi.

The Supreme Court maintained the order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court to file FIR and launch investigation as per the application made by Vijaybai on… pic.twitter.com/m8CdCtfqh2

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) July 30, 2025

On July 4, The Aurangabad Bench of the Hon’ble Court of Bombay had ordered to register an FIR against the police responsible for the custodial death of Somnath Suryavanshi and the brutality in Parbhani.

But the State of Maharashtra appealed against the order of High Court in the… pic.twitter.com/DhG6PHRvmU

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) July 30, 2025

Detailed report may be read here and here.

Allegations of torture and postmortem findings

In her FIR, Vijayabai has alleged that Somnath was subjected to three days of continuous custodial torture at the New Mondha police station. Activists have also corroborated her account, noting that the post-mortem report documented fractured bones and internal injuries, directly contradicting earlier government statements that claimed he had pre-existing respiratory issues and died of chest pain.

This claim was echoed by Chief Minister Fadnavis in the legislative assembly shortly after the new Mahayuti government was sworn in. He maintained that Somnath had a “serious respiratory illness” and had died of “natural causes.” However, these claims were debunked when the post-mortem revealed evidence of blunt force trauma, broken shoulder bones, and signs of sustained physical assault.

Detailed report may be read here and here.

Prakash Ambedkar’s legal intervention and political fallout

The case received a significant boost when Prakash Ambedkar, chief of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) and grandson of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, took up the cause and personally argued the matter before the courts. “Somnath shed his blood for the Constitution of this country. He was murdered for standing up for its values,” Ambedkar said in a press briefing after the SC order.

He added that the FIR will pave the way for a broader investigation into custodial violence in Maharashtra. “This case may become a benchmark for custodial death investigations. We are now demanding that the JJ Hospital doctors who issued secondary medical opinions without court orders also be made accused. The role of doctors must not be overlooked in shielding police impunity,” he said.

Ambedkar also questioned the legality of the “combing operation” carried out in Parbhani after the desecration incident, during which multiple Dalit homes were raided, and arrests made without due process. “All officers who were part of that illegal operation must be investigated,” he added.

मुंबई उच्च न्यायालयाच्या औरंगाबाद खंडपीठाने सोमनाथ सूर्यवंशी हत्येप्रकरणी एका आठवड्याच्या आत पोलिसांवर एफआयआर दाखल करण्याचा स्पष्ट आदेश दिला होता. मात्र, आजपर्यंत तो एफआयआर दाखल झालेला नाही. त्यामुळे आता पोलीस आणि प्रशासनवर कोर्टाच्या अवमानाच्या (Contempt of Court) अंतर्गत… pic.twitter.com/uizaD3wmSC

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) July 30, 2025

What lies ahead?

With the FIR now registered under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced IPC Section 302 (murder), attention is shifting toward the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or a Judicial Commission. Activists and lawyers have demanded that the probe be conducted independently of the Maharashtra police to avoid conflict of interest, given that police officials are the primary accused.

The delay in FIR registration — despite the HC’s clear order and the absence of any stay by the Supreme Court — has also raised questions about contempt of court and executive resistance to judicial directives, showing that the Parbhani police’s inaction between July 4 and August 1 could expose them to proceedings for wilful non-compliance.

Related:

Bombay High Court orders FIR in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case, slams police for delay and bias

Biased and Preconceived: Bombay HC criticises police inquiry into Parbhani custodial death of Somnath Suryawanshi

Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC

State-sanctioned brutality? Dalit communities targeted in Parbhani “combing operations”, women, children abused

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

The post Custodial Death of Dalit Law Student Somnath Suryawanshi: FIR registered after Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC directive appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the report of Hindustan Times, a division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh directed the Mondha Police Station to register the FIR within one week based on a complaint filed by Somnath’s mother, Vijayabai Suryawanshi, and asked the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, to transfer the case to an officer of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) rank. The bench also took strong exception to the delay in registration of the FIR, despite the presence of post-mortem, magisterial inquiry, and inquest reports that collectively indicated that Somnath had suffered grievous injuries in custody.

Background and arrest

Somnath Suryawanshi, a final-year law student from Pune, had travelled to Parbhani to appear for his examination when he was caught in the aftermath of large-scale protests that erupted on December 10, 2024. The protests were sparked by the desecration of a glass-encased replica of the Indian Constitution placed near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, an act that allegedly followed a public meeting organised by the Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha, a far-right outfit. Police launched sweeping arrests following the violence, picking up over 50 men and women, most of them from marginalised and Dalit communities.

Somnath was allegedly detained on December 11, and according to police accounts, he died on December 15, four days later, after collapsing inside the Parbhani Central Prison. Authorities claimed he had complained of chest pain and was shifted to a state-run hospital, where he was declared dead.

However, this narrative was forcefully challenged in a writ petition filed by his mother in April 2025, alleging that her son had been brutally tortured in custody, and that the police had tried to cover up the custodial killing. Her legal team, led by advocate Prakash Ambedkar, assisted by Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, argued for immediate FIR registration, suspension of the concerned officers, and the formation of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Postmortem and magisterial inquiry findings

A magisterial inquiry, concluded on March 20, 2025, unequivocally held the police responsible for Somnath’s death, confirming multiple instances of custodial violence. His post-mortem report documented 24 visible external injuries and several internal injuries, concluding that the cause of death was “shock due to multiple injuries.” The inquest report too noted visible trauma on the body.

Despite these findings, the police failed to initiate criminal proceedings against their own personnel. In her petition, Vijayabai also alleged that police officer Ashok Ghorband had offered her ₹50 lakh to not file a complaint against the department. She accused the police of acting out of caste-based hatred, and demanded full disclosure of the magisterial report and an impartial probe.

April 29, 2025: High Court intervenes

In a significant first intervention, the Aurangabad Bench on April 29, 2025, expressed grave concern over the direction of the ongoing police-led investigation. The court observed that the inquiry appeared to be conducted with a “preconceived notion,” undermining the credibility of the process. It restrained the police from proceeding further with the investigation, pending further review, and set the next hearing for May 8, emphasising the need to safeguard the integrity of the process.

The restraint order marked a serious judicial rebuke and indicated that the court was unwilling to let the same police force accused of custodial violence investigate the case unilaterally. (Detailed report may be read here.)

May 8, 2025: Ongoing scrutiny

At the subsequent hearing on May 8, the court continued to press for accountability and demanded updated records, while public prosecutor A.B. Girase, appearing for the state, maintained that no illegality had occurred and that the CID-led probe was ongoing. The petitioner’s counsel rejected this, arguing that continuing the investigation under the same agency—despite it being accused—was a violation of basic legal norms and natural justice.

Advocate Hitendra Gandhi cited the 2023 Badlapur custodial death case as a precedent, where the Bombay High Court had constituted an SIT to probe the custodial killing of Akshay Shinde, an accused in a sexual assault case who was allegedly killed in a staged encounter. The court in that case had allowed Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam, to constitute his own team, drawing officers from any department of his choosing.

July 4, 2025: FIR ordered, CID criticised

At the July 4 hearing, the court finally ordered the mandatory registration of an FIR, noting that the post-mortem, magisterial inquiry, and inquest reports provided sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant criminal proceedings. The bench also criticised the CID for seeking a second medical opinion from JJ Hospital in Mumbai, bypassing the original seven-member autopsy team, calling the move suspicious and unnecessary.

“The post-mortem report shows that there were 24 visible injuries. Of course, there are internal injuries also,” the court observed, as per the HT report. It questioned why such strong medical findings had not yet translated into criminal proceedings.

Public prosecutor Girase again argued against premature FIR registration, claiming the inquiry was still incomplete. The bench, however, rejected this argument, noting that continuing delay in the face of clear evidence amounted to obstruction of justice.

Towards judicial accountability in custodial deaths

The High Court’s categorical order to file an FIR, its castigation of the CID, and its early restraint on a biased probe mark a significant step in holding law enforcement accountable for custodial deaths, particularly those involving caste-based violence. The court’s observations also signal growing judicial impatience with institutional delays and systemic obfuscation in such cases.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2025. The outcome could have wide-ranging implications for custodial death jurisprudence in Maharashtra, and may set a precedent for mandatory independent probes in all such incidents. If an SIT is constituted under judicial supervision, it could strengthen demands for structural reforms in how police misconduct, especially involving vulnerable communities, is investigated and prosecuted.

Related:

Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

Massive all-party march in Parbhani demands justice for Dalit youth’s custodial death

Special Report: ‘They came like monkeys; they came like Nazis.’ Ambedkari Bastis in Parbhani face the traumas of police brutality

The post Bombay High Court orders FIR in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case, slams police for delay and bias appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The facts were damning. The deceased was in police custody. It was undisputed that he died of gunshot wounds inflicted by a police officer. A Magistrate’s inquiry had concluded earlier that the five policemen’s use of force was “unjustified” and noted that there were no fingerprints of the deceased on the weapon he was allegedly using. Yet, the SIT, formed by the court on April 7 under a senior, independent officer (Joint Commissioner Lakhmi Gautam), claimed it could not lodge an FIR because the victim’s father had declined to pursue the case—citing loss of faith in the system. The High Court had to remind the State that in a cognisable offence, the police are duty-bound to file an FIR suo moto. (Details of the April 7 order may be read here.)

“We all have some responsibilities. Do not let the faith of the public in the system erode,” Justice Mohite-Dere had sternly warned. Ultimately, after public embarrassment and judicial prodding, the State agreed to file an FIR by May 3, with a nominated officer from the SIT acting as complainant.

But just days later, on May 5, the Supreme Court dismantled the very framework that made the High Court’s intervention effective. Responding to a Special Leave Petition filed by the State, a bench led by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale removed Joint Commissioner Gautam from the supervisory role and handed the investigation back to the Director General of Police (DGP)—a move that effectively returns control of the case to the highest ranks of the same police force being accused.

May 5: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay High Court’s SIT directive, hands probe back to police hierarchy

In a move that raises serious concerns about police accountability in custodial and encounter deaths, the Supreme Court on May 5 significantly diluted a Bombay High Court order that had mandated a court-monitored probe into the alleged fake encounter in Badlapur involving five policemen. The High Court’s order, notable for its insistence on institutional independence, had directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of a specific officer—Lakhmi Gautam, Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The Supreme Court has now modified that order, transferring supervisory control of the SIT to the Director General of Police (DGP), effectively returning the investigation to the top of the same law enforcement hierarchy implicated in the matter.

The bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Maharashtra objecting to the High Court’s decision to name a specific officer to lead the investigation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State, insisted that the State had no objection to the formation of an SIT but took issue with the High Court’s direction to place the probe under Joint Commissioner Gautam. SG Mehta contended that the DGP should be the supervisory authority, citing procedural norms and the need for institutional oversight.

In its order, the Court noted that “The petitioners state of Maharashtra has approached this Court by filing SLP being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the order to the extent of constituting the SIT in the manner directed in para 32, that is, under the supervision of Lakhmi Gautam, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. It is submitted by learned SG Mr. Mehta that the State has no objection with the SIT being constituted, but let it be constituted under the supervision of DGP, having regard to the litigations made. Since the respondent-complaint has already withdrawn himself before the High Court, we don’t see any reason to issue notice to the Respondent.”

In response, Justice Trivedi suggested a compromise—allowing either the DGP or a nominee to head the SIT. Justice Varale went further, implicitly critiquing the High Court by observing that it should not have selected specific officers for the probe.

“Under such circumstances, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the allegations and concerns expressed by the High Court, we modify the order to the extent of constituting the SIT. We direct the SIT to be constituted by the DGP and officers selected by the DGP as deemed fit. The State shall do the needful in handing papers to DGP. We may clarify that the complaint, if he has any grievance, may approach the competent court that is the concerned magistrate or sessions court for appropriate relief. As a consequence, order dated April 30 or any order passed subsequently shall also stand modified. SLP stands disposed,” the order states.

What this line of judicial reasoning ignores, however, is precisely what necessitated the High Court’s intervention in the first place: a lack of faith in the Maharashtra police to investigate its own. The allegations involved custodial abuse and a suspected staged encounter. In such cases, courts have a duty to ensure an independent investigation that does not merely recycle command structures of the same force under scrutiny. By overturning a key portion of the High Court’s order—while ostensibly upholding the idea of an SIT—the Supreme Court has gutted the central safeguard meant to ensure impartiality.

The apex court’s order notes that since the complainant had already withdrawn from the High Court proceedings, there was no need to issue notice to him in the SLP. But this legal formality sidelines the broader public interest concern in the case—the right to life and protection against extrajudicial killings, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In its final direction, the Court modified the Bombay High Court’s order to state that the SIT shall be constituted by the DGP, who may select officers as deemed fit. The State is directed to hand over all relevant case documents to the DGP. It further notes that the complainant, if aggrieved, can approach the magistrate or sessions court for relief—an impractical suggestion, given that systemic police impunity is precisely what triggered the demand for a more credible probe.

This development reflects a broader trend of courts increasingly deferring to state institutions—even those implicated in serious misconduct—under the guise of procedural propriety. It signals judicial hesitancy to disturb the command structure of the police, even when there are credible allegations of rights violations by officers in that very structure.

By shifting the supervision of the SIT from a court-appointed officer to the DGP—who remains an administrative appointee of the State—the Supreme Court has diluted a rare instance of judicial courage shown by the Bombay High Court. The result is a probe that now risks becoming a bureaucratic formality rather than a meaningful pursuit of truth and accountability.

The complete order may be read here.

April 30: Maharashtra Police finally agrees to file FIR in the Badlapur fake encounter case

On April 30, after prolonged delays and repeated non-compliance, the Maharashtra Police finally informed the Bombay High Court that an FIR would be registered in the Badlapur ‘fake encounter’ case by Saturday, May 3. The assurance came during a hearing before a division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale, which had been monitoring the progress—or lack thereof—in the investigation into the death of a man in police custody.

The commitment to file the FIR was made by Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar after the court issued a stern warning to both the State Police and the court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT). The bench expressed serious displeasure at the continued defiance of its April 7 order, which had directed the constitution of an SIT to investigate the involvement of five police officers in what was strongly suspected to be a custodial killing disguised as an encounter. The court had emphasised that the case warranted a thorough and independent investigation, especially since it was an undisputed fact that the deceased had died from bullet wounds inflicted by a police officer while he was in custody.

Justice Mohite-Dere, during the earlier order, had observed that crimes of this nature not only affect the individual victim but also shake the public’s faith in the justice system and society at large. The bench had then directed that the SIT be led by Joint Commissioner of Police Lakhmi Gautam, who was authorised to pick his own team, to be headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP). The State CID was instructed to hand over all relevant documents and case materials to the SIT within 48 hours.

Despite these clear directions, during the April 25 hearing, the court was shocked to learn that the CID had failed to transfer the necessary documents. It was only after a full day of tense proceedings—and threats of contempt action—that the CID finally agreed to comply. However, by April 30, it emerged that the SIT had still not registered an FIR. Venegavkar attempted to explain that the SIT was waiting for the father of the deceased to lodge a formal complaint.

The bench firmly rejected this reasoning, reminding the prosecution that the father had already declined to file a complaint, citing delayed justice and emotional exhaustion. The judges reiterated that it was now the duty of the SIT to proceed suo moto—on its own authority—and file the FIR without further delay. They made it unequivocally clear that the court expected nothing less than a fair, impartial, and independent investigation.

Venegavkar then sought to delay matters further, stating that the SIT needed either a formal complaint or the inquiry documents relied upon by the Magistrate, who had already concluded that the force used by the police was excessive and unjustified. The Magistrate’s report also noted that the deceased’s fingerprints were not found on the weapon allegedly used to fire at the police and questioned the police’s claim of self-defence, describing it as “suspicious and unjustified.”

These arguments did not go down well with the bench. The judges forcefully reminded the prosecutor that the SIT was fully empowered to act independently and had no excuse not to lodge an FIR when a cognisable offence had clearly been committed. “We only want an independent, fair, and impartial probe not influenced by anyone,” Justice Mohite-Dere said, as per a report in the LiveLaw, warning that the credibility of the justice system was at stake.

According to this report, Justice Gokhale, clearly frustrated, stated, “These are very sorry state of affairs… You ought to have complied with our orders. We have no option but to initiate contempt proceedings.” Justice Mohite-Dere added that the situation was “sheer misuse of the court’s time.”

Following these sharp admonishments, Venegavkar requested a short adjournment to consult with senior police officers. After the break, he returned with the submission that an SIT officer, Mangesh Desai, would be appointed as the formal complainant. Based on his complaint, the FIR would finally be registered.

April 25: Bombay High Court slams Maharashtra CID for brazen defiance, warns of criminal contempt

On April 25, the Bombay High Court had come down heavily on the Maharashtra Police, particularly the State CID, for wilfully defying its April 7 order directing the transfer of investigation in the Badlapur ‘fake’ encounter case to a court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT). A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale strongly criticised the State for what it called a “brazen violation” of its orders, warning that such conduct amounted to criminal contempt of court.

Notably, on April 7, the High Court had constituted an SIT under the leadership of IPS officer Lakhmi Gautam, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and directed the State CID to hand over all investigation papers to the SIT within two days. Despite the clear directive, the CID failed to comply.

During the April 25 hearing, amicus curiae and senior advocate Manjula Rao informed the court that the CID had not yet transferred the case papers. The bench further learned from a letter sent by a State-constituted Judicial Commission to the High Court Registry that it too had not received the relevant documents, exposing the extent of non-compliance.

Visibly irate, Justice Gokhale warned the CID of potential criminal contempt proceedings, stating unequivocally that orders of the court must be followed irrespective of whether the State agrees with them. According to the report in the LiveLaw, she noted that although the State had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the April 7 order, there was no stay on the order, making it binding. “The rule of law must be followed,” she said. “Whether you agree with the order or not, you have to comply with it. Otherwise, we will be constrained to issue contempt of court proceedings.”

Justice Gokhale remarked that the CID’s refusal to act constituted a “fit case” for contempt proceedings. She emphasised that if the State was so aggrieved by the order, it should have urgently moved the Supreme Court for relief—something it had failed to do despite almost a month having passed since the order. “Speaking for myself,” she said as a report in the LiveLaw, “this is actually a brazen violation of our orders.”

Justice Mohite-Dere echoed the same concern. She noted that merely filing an SLP does not suspend the effect of a court’s directive and that State authorities cannot ignore binding orders on that basis. “What prevents you from transferring the papers?” she asked, as per LiveLaw’s report. “Is there any sanctity to our orders or not? Are you not in contempt?” She further held the SIT chief, Lakhmi Gautam, accountable for not informing the court about the non-compliance, adding that he too was potentially in contempt.

The court ordered both Gautam and a senior CID officer to appear post-lunch. When the hearing resumed, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar urged the bench to defer the matter until the Supreme Court heard the SLP. But Justice Gokhale remained unimpressed, saying: “We just cannot be waiting endlessly. You can always seek urgent listing in the apex court. It is not as if you have never done it before.”

Venegavkar then attempted to mitigate the situation by informing the court that Gautam had constituted his SIT team. However, Justice Mohite-Dere interjected sharply: “What is the use of constituting a team when they do not have the papers? What will they do—just sit around?”

Justice Gokhale added that the failure to hand over the documents was not only deliberate but also conveyed a dangerous message to the public. “What message are you giving to the citizens? That court orders are passed just for show?” she asked. “Either hand over the documents or face contempt.”

The court then directly questioned Prashant Waghunde, Superintendent of CID, Navi Mumbai, about why the documents hadn’t been handed over. Waghunde said he was acting under instructions from his superiors, but refused to name them. This evasiveness frustrated the bench further. As per the LiveLaw report, Justice Mohite-Dere said, “Your officer may be helpless, but we are not. We’re trying to protect him, but he refuses to name his superior. We didn’t want to make him a scapegoat, but he’s leaving us no choice.”

The matter was passed over multiple times to allow senior officers to reconsider. Finally, Prashant Burde, the Additional Director General of Police (State CID), appeared virtually. He apologised for the events that had transpired and assured the court that the documents would be handed over to the SIT. The judges, accepting this assurance, held back from initiating contempt proceedings—for now.

This hearing marks a critical juncture in the Badlapur ‘fake’ encounter case, highlighting serious concerns about institutional accountability, the enforcement of judicial orders, and the State’s duty to uphold the rule of law. The court’s intervention underscores its determination to ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied, especially in cases implicating custodial killings and potential abuse of power by law enforcement officers.

Background of the case

On April 7, 2025, the Bombay High Court had ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged fake encounter of a young man in Badlapur. The court observed that the case warranted a thorough investigation since it was undisputed that the deceased died of bullet wounds inflicted by a police officer while in custody. Emphasising that crimes committed by law enforcement impact not just individuals but the entire society, the bench warned against brushing aside the public’s legitimate interest in such investigations.

The SIT was to be led by Mumbai’s Joint Commissioner of Police, Lakhmi Gautam, who was granted the autonomy to handpick officers for the probe, which would be supervised by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP). The Maharashtra CID was directed to transfer all relevant documents to the SIT within two days.

The case originated from a petition filed by the parents of the accused in the 2024 Badlapur school sexual assault case, who was allegedly killed in a staged police encounter on September 23, 2024. The parents claimed that their son was murdered in custody.

During initial hearings, the High Court had criticised the State for its superficial investigation. The judges remarked that it was difficult to believe that the five police officers present in the van with the deceased were unable to restrain him and even suggested that the alleged shootout could have been avoided.

A significant development came in January 2025 when a Magistrate submitted a report under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The report squarely blamed the five police officers for using excessive and unjustified force. It pointed out that there were no fingerprints of the deceased on the firearm he allegedly used, and dismissed the police’s claim of acting in private defence as suspicious and unsubstantiated.

However, in a surprising turn, the deceased’s parents sought to withdraw their petition in February, citing repeated delays in the justice process. On February 6, they told the court they no longer wished to pursue the case. Notably, in December 2024, they had informed the bench that their pursuit of justice had led to their expulsion from their village, forcing them to live on the streets and beg for survival.

The very next day, on February 7, the High Court expressed shock after learning that a Thane sessions court had stayed the Magistrate’s report—one that had validated the parents’ claims and found substance in the allegations of a fake encounter. (Detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here)

Why the Bombay High Court’s orders were essential?

The Bombay High Court’s interventions in the Badlapur fake encounter case were not merely judicial oversight—they were a necessary assertion of constitutional accountability in the face of systemic police impunity. The facts were damning: the deceased was in police custody, died of bullet injuries, and a judicial inquiry found the police action unjustified. And yet, despite this, the Maharashtra Police showed blatant resistance to lodging an FIR—one of the most basic procedural requirements in any cognisable offence. It was only under sustained judicial pressure, including threats of contempt that the State relented.

The Court’s insistence on constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the direct supervision of a specific senior officer—Joint Commissioner Lakhmi Gautam—was a deliberate choice. It was designed to break the vicious cycle of internal shielding that often accompanies custodial violence cases, where the same force accused of wrongdoing is entrusted with investigating itself. The High Court recognised that institutional independence was not an abstract virtue but a practical necessity to ensure truth, justice, and public confidence in the rule of law. Its actions served as a critical check on executive inaction and obstruction.

The Supreme Court’s decision to dilute this framework—by handing the SIT back to the Director General of Police—undermines that very goal. The DGP remains the head of the police force in Maharashtra, which includes the accused officers. While technically adhering to the idea of an SIT, this move defeats its intended purpose: an independent and impartial investigation. It signals a return to hierarchical control, where influence and pressure may once again stifle accountability.

The Bombay High Court’s orders were essential because they embodied the judiciary’s duty under Article 21—to protect the right to life and dignity, especially when the violator is the State itself. In a country where custodial deaths and fake encounters are far too common and justice remains elusive, these orders were a rare moment of institutional resolve. Diluting them not only weakens the probe in the present case but sets a troubling precedent that may discourage lower courts from taking similarly bold steps in future cases of State excess.

Ultimately, the Bombay High Court did what the law demands: it held the State to its constitutional responsibilities. Its orders were essential because they confronted not just the facts of one death, but the structure of impunity that enables many more. The Supreme Court’s retreat from that framework is not just a legal recalibration—it risks becoming a moral failure.

Related:

A Judgement of Conscience: Bombay High Court orders SIT Probe into alleged fake encounter in Badlapur

Bombay High Court directs filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against the 5 cops held responsible for death of accused in Badlapur Sexual

Biased and Preconceived: Bombay HC criticises police inquiry into Parbhani custodial death of Somnath Suryawanshi

The post Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Somnath Suryawanshi, a 35-year-old aspirant who had travelled from Pune to Parbhani to appear for a law entrance examination, was among the 50 individuals detained by the Parbhani police on December 11 and 12, 2024, in connection with the violence that erupted after the desecration of a replica of the Constitution on December 10. Suryawanshi was allegedly picked up by the police on December 11. He died four days later, on December 15, while in judicial custody. According to police accounts, he collapsed due to shock from multiple injuries and was taken to a government hospital after complaining of chest pain inside the Parbhani district central prison.

However, a magisterial inquiry concluded on March 20, 2025, had clearly held the police responsible for Suryawanshi’s custodial death. In response, the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission had issued notices to top state officials, including the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Additional Director General of Police (CID – Crime), and the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Parbhani, seeking comprehensive reports.

Representing the petitioner Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi, the deceased’s mother, advocate Prakash Ambedkar, assisted by advocates Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, strongly argued for immediate registration of an FIR against the police officers allegedly responsible. The petitioner further demanded the constitution of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure an independent and impartial probe into the custodial death. Advocate Gandhi questioned the credibility of a police-led inquiry in a case where the police are themselves accused, asserting that continuing the current investigation would only further erode public trust in the system.

Drawing parallels with the precedent set in the 2023 Badlapur custodial death case, where the Bombay High Court had ordered an SIT to probe the custodial killing of Akshay Shinde—an accused in a sexual assault case allegedly killed in a staged encounter—advocate Gandhi urged the court to issue similar directions in Suryawanshi’s case. In the Badlapur matter, Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale had ordered an SIT led by Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam, and allowed him to form his own team, led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police, with officers from any department of his choosing.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, public prosecutor A.B. Girase, representing the Maharashtra government, informed the court that the state intends to file an affidavit in response to the concerns raised.

The court’s restraint order, along with its strong observations, underscores a growing judicial intolerance toward the mishandling of custodial death investigations. It also signals a potential shift towards stricter judicial oversight in such cases. If the court accedes to the petitioner’s demand for an SIT and guidelines for handling custodial deaths, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for accountability mechanisms in police custody cases across the state.

Related:

Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

Massive all-party march in Parbhani demands justice for Dalit youth’s custodial death

Special Report: ‘They came like monkeys; they came like Nazis.’ Ambedkari Bastis in Parbhani face the traumas of police brutality

The post Biased and Preconceived: Bombay HC criticises police inquiry into Parbhani custodial death of Somnath Suryawanshi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shockingly, the bench noted that despite Khan challenging the said notice and mentioning the same before it on Monday morning (March 24), the authorities pulled down the house amid heavy security and drone surveillance in the entire area, on Monday afternoon. Advocate for the NMC argued that the demolition was already a fait accompli!

“We therefore, mentioned the matter again at 2:30 PM and the bench heard us. We apprised the bench of the facts of the case and how the NMC hurriedly demolished my client’s house. The bench was not at all impressed with the NMC. In fact, the bench questioned the authorities about their conduct and even pulled them for their high-handedness,” stated advocate Ashwin Ingole, who represented Khan in the HC.

Following brief arguments, the bench prima facie found the action in gross violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, (the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures) wherein a bench led by Justice Bhushan Gavai had held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

“But for the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, further factual matrix appears to be identical and prima facie we are satisfied that the respondent-Authorities are conducting demolition in contravention of the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures,” the judges said in the order.

The bench noted that another accused Abdul Hafiz, too received a similar notice and his house was also partially demolished by the authorities. It therefore, stayed the operations of the demolition notice.

“That being so, the entire action pursuant to the notice dated March 21, 2025 issued to the petitioners shall remain stayed until further orders,” the bench ordered.

Besides the bench stated that, “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record.”

On the other hand, advocate Jemini Kasat representing the NMC informed the judges that the demolition action is already over. The bench recorded the statement. “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record,” the judges said while adjourning the hearing till April 15.

Shri A. R. Ingole, Advocate for petitioner. Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate with Shri Amit Prasad, Advocate for respondents.

The order of the High Court may be read here

Related:

Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement

The post ‘High-Handed, violation of the SC orders’: Bombay HC pulls up Nagpur Civic Body for demolishing homes of accused in communal violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through this order, the HC quashed and set aside the department’s July 1, 2024, order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (ACC) that confiscated the artworks by, labelling them under the ‘obscene material’ category and prohibited them for import. On October 21, a bench of Justices Mahesh S Sonak and Jitendra S Jain, while hearing a plea by BK Polimex India Pvt Ltd, a company owned by Mumbai-based businessman and art collector Mustafa Karachiwala, had restrained authorities from destroying the confiscated artworks that were seized in 2023.

This consignment had included seven artworks, including a folio of four erotic drawings by Souza, with one of them titled ‘Lovers’.The batch also included three other pieces by Padamsee, one drawing titled ‘Nude’ and two photographs. In 2022, three nude artworks of Padamsee and four of Souza were purchased at auction houses Roseberys in London, and Lyon & Turnbull in Scotland.

The petitioner firm, through advocates Shreyas Shrivastava, Saurabh Shrivastava and Shraddha Swarup, termed the seizing of artworks and imposing Rs. 50,000 fine ‘arbitrary and illegal’.
“We are satisfied that the ACC’s order suffers from perversity and unreasonableness…The ACC, utterly obsessed with his notions of obscenity, has confiscated and possibly directed the destruction of the artworks of Padamsee and Souza. The ACC relies solely on his conviction that any artwork depicting nudity or sexual intercourse is inherently obscene,” the bench noted.
It added that the ACC “disregarded the artists’ prominence and expertise and the fact that many art experts and judicial precedents had recognised these works as significant artworks and not obscenity.”

“The ACC failed to appreciate that sex and obscenity are not always synonymous. Obscene material is that which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest (William J Brennan, Jr.). Such an order, in our opinion, is unsustainable and must go,” said the bench.

The order also mentioned that, “the ACC’s personal conviction that any nude portrayal of a woman or any drawings portraying sexual poses is invariably obscene could not or should not have been the fulcrum of his decision.”

Further observing that while the matter cannot be solely decided based on eminence of two artists, the bench said it could not have also not been decided by ACC repeatedly focusing on the fact that artworks were nude and in some cases portrayed sexual intercourse positions and hence they were obscene. “Every nude painting or every painting depicting some sexual intercourse poses cannot be styled as obscene,” the HC observed. The HC added that the petitioner has correctly pointed out that “nude sculptures and art are prevalent in several Indian temples and celebrated for their artistic excellence.”

The bench referred to a Supreme Court judgement of 60 years ago which declared that “in India, the angels and saints of Michelangelo do not need to be made to wear breeches before they can be viewed.” Still in 2024, the ACC prohibited import and ordered confiscation of seven drawings by world-renowned artists on the basis of obscenity, it said.

Justice Sonak, who authored the verdict further remarked, “The customs laws of India do not insist that Michelangelo’s David be fully clothed before he passes through our Customs Borders.”

The judge added, “The ACC cannot lightly and without adverting to relevant considerations assume the mantle of being a spokesperson for community standards….Just as one swallow does not make a summer, so also one such decision of one such assistant commissioner of customs does not make the law on this subject.”

The bench also remarked that several great artists have had to tread an “unfortunate path hedged by those dressed in little brief or even grand or pompous authority” Allowing the plea, the bench held that it was a case of “completely ignoring vital and relevant material and basing the decision on personal preferences and prejudices, which should have no place in decision making by a public authority.”

Related:

Three Girls, submissive no more: Contemporary artists adapt Amrita Sher-Gil’s painting

Did Akbar really examine paintings every week? All the World’s a Mughal Stage

How ascetics and yogis were depicted in Indian paintings from the Mughal era

The post Bombay HC: Rapping customs department for dubbing F N Souza and Akbar Padamsee’s nudes ‘obscene’, orders release of artworks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a case involving sexual assault against two kindergarten girl students at a school in Badlapur, the Bombay HC chastened the police authorities for the delay in registering the FIR and victim statement of one of the girls.  It also pulled up the school authorities for not reporting the case to the police and asked whether the police had registered a case against the school under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. When Advocate General Birendra Saraf told the court that action against the school will be taken now, the court retorted that it should have been done at the earliest and ordered the police to take action against the school authorities, Bar and Bench reported. The bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan also questioned the police for not naming the second child victim in the FIR and sought explanation for the same.

The court made these queries and remarks while hearing the suo moto case [High Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra] on August 22, 2024 concerning the lapses in police investigation in the case of sexual abuse of two 4-year-old girls at a school in Thane’s Badlapur.

The bench was reported saying that “These girls have complained but several cases go unreported. It needs huge amount of courage to speak about all this. Definitely the Police hasn’t played its role the way it ought to be. Had the police be sensitised, this wouldn’t have happened.” The court further conveyed its displeasure and said “We are appalled by the fact that the Badlapur Police has taken no efforts to record the statement of the second victim girl with either under Section 161 and 164.”

Notably, the Press Trust of India reported that thousands of protesters blocked railway tracks at Badlapur station and stormed the school building on Tuesday (August 20, 2024) after the case came to the limelight. The accused has been identified as a school sweeper and had reportedly assaulted the girls in the school washroom. The police informed the court that they have formed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the case and have arrested the accused Akshay Shinde on August 17, following the complaint reported by the parents of the victim on August 16. The state also told the Court that statements of the girls have been recorded and their medical examination has also been conducted. The bench said that counselling of the girls needs to be undertaken, asked the state to inform in that regard.

Notably, it is alleged that the parents of the victim girls were made to wait for 11 hours at Badlapur police station before the officials took note of taking their complaints. On this issue the bench said that “The first thing in such cases of minors is police must have registered FIR. But they made the family wait for hours. This discourages the public from reporting such incidents.”

Criticising the Maharashtra Police, the High Court said “People shouldn’t lose faith in public. You should know what the motto of the Maharashtra Police is सद्रक्षणाय खलनिग्रहणाय (Sadarakshanaya Khalanigrahanay). It means to protect the good and restrain the wicked. Please be reminded of this…People should not come out on the streets like this for getting an FIR lodged.”

In a separate matter in which a minor girl was raped and who’s four and half month-old foetus was clandestinely aborted by a private hospital in Mumbai, another bench of Bombay HC rebuked the Maharashtra Police for deficiencies in the investigation. Importantly, the hospital had destroyed all the evidence regarding the abortion and had discarded the foetus.

Taking cue from the Badlapur case, the bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale took a shot at the police and said “Every day, we come across at least four cases of serious crimes against women which aren’t probed properly… This is pathetic… Don’t you have specialised officers or women officers? Why to let only constables and head constables probe the cases. Why isn’t the Police sensitive in such cases?”

Justice Gadkari said, “Unless people protest your department won’t investigate? Is the State of Maharashtra trying to give us a signal that unless people protest it won’t take crimes against women seriously? Every day we are hearing of some or the other rape or a POCSO case”, LiveLaw reported.

The bench also questioned DCP Chowgule-Shringi and asked how come the police was not aware of the fact that a ‘hasty’ abortion carried out on the victim, who happened to be minor at the time of the incident. When the officer told the court that statement of the victim has been recorded by the police under Section 164, the bench replied that “But how will you prove the fact that the accused impregnated the victim? What if the court says the 164 statements are not inspiring confidence? Where does the case go then? Will this not help the accused? Is the police now helping the accused to save him from the clutches of law? How can the hospital destroy such vital piece of evidence?”

It further said “Had we not taken judicial note, this couldn’t have come to light. Shouldn’t we record that all this is being done only to assist the accused in a POCSO case. How can the hospital carry out termination of a 4 and a half months foetus by consent of the minor girl, who lodged Rape case against accused…And worst is how can the hospital not maintain the evidence and go ahead and discard the entire evidence despite our clear orders that whenever the pregnancy of a rape victim is aborted, the tissue needs to be preserved for the purpose of DNA Sampling”.

The court ordered the DCP to file an affidavit detailing the investigation plan of the police and asked what action it proposes to take against the hospital, which destroyed the evidence. Moreover, it also directed the police authorities to verify whether the applicant Tarun Singh obtained the consent for the abortion either fraudulently or by force from the victim and her family.

The bench further expressed its concern over the manner in which investigations are being carried out by the police in cases related to women and children, despite repeated court orders flagging poor investigations in such cases. The judges said that if the state of Maharashtra is unable to pursue proper investigation in these matters, it should make a public declaration that it will not henceforth probe such serious cases.

Related:

Supreme Court stands firm on POCSO cases, overturns high court decision | CJP

Accused under POSCO granted bail on condition of marriage to victim: Allahabad HC | SabrangIndia

1.9 lakh POCSO cases pending in Fast Track Courts: Ministry of Women and Child Development | SabrangIndia

The post Bombay HC chastens Maharashtra Police for shoddy investigation in cases involving sexual assault against minors and women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The five men are: Sujit Rangaswami, Amit Baddi, Ganesh Miskin, Shrikant Pangarkar and Bharat Kurane. The High Court granted them bail on July 30, and the order was made public on August 5.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande observed that the alleged conspiracy to bomb the festival was never executed. The bench further added that “We have noted that all the accused persons are arrested in the year 2018 and as on date, though the trial has commenced, only two witnesses have been examined and third witness is in the witness box, when the prosecution has cited the list of 417 witnesses,”.

The prime allegation, even as per the chargesheet was that the accused persons being active members of the Sanatan Sanstha and Hindu Janjagruti Samiti, hatched a conspiracy to execute petrol and crude bomb blasts in the then ongoing Sunburn festival in Pune city.

It was further alleged that they were influenced by the philosophy of creation of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ and keeping this objective in mind, had conspired to eliminate all activities opposing the Hindu religion and all entities, which were preaching or writing or propounding against their religion. It was claimed that they were active in disruption in the exhibition of movies, and conduct of programmes, which according to them, in any manner brought any disrepute to the pride of the Hindu religion.

The chargesheet further discloses that the persons opposing the deep-rooted practices adopted in Hindu culture through their writings like Dr Narendra Dabholkar from ‘Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti’, Comrade Govind Pansare as well as Prof MM Kalburgi and senior journalist Gauri Lankesh, who were done to death by the ‘motorcycle riders.’

The judges, however, opined that such statements in the chargesheet, were insufficient to establish the charge of conspiracy against the Appellants.

The judges further emphasised the fact that the ‘speedy trial’ has received a recognition of the fundamental right of a person facing accusations and being subjected to trial.

The accused persons were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Arms Act, and the Maharashtra Police Act.

The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad has alleged in its chargesheet that the accused persons were influenced by a book titled Kshatra Dharma Sadhana, which is published by the Sanatan Sanstha and calls on Hindus to establish a Hindu Rashtra or Hindu nation.

The notorious and aggressive Hindu Janjagruti Samiti (HJS) and its ally Sanatan Sanstha who’s activists (and masterminds) have alleged to be linked to the accused of rationalist murders of Narendra Dabholkar (2013), Govind Pansare (2015), MM Kalburgi (2015) and Gauri Lankesh (2017) presently hosts an international meet to hail and promote the idea of Hindu Rashtra (India as a Hindutva Theocracy).

The Order of the Court can be read here:

Related:

Memo seeking preventive action against Hindu Janajagruti Samiti event sent to authorities

Hindu Janagaruti Samiti (HJS) & Karnataka links

The post Bombay HC grants bail to Sanatan Sanstha and Hindu Janjagruti Samiti Members appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Observations of the court

The Bombay High Court observed that the dress code prohibiting students from wearing hijab, nakab, burka, stole and cap on the campus is in the student’s larger academic interest.

The court referred to the case of Miss Fathema Hussain, a minor v. Bharat Education society and Ors., where in the Bombay High Court in 2003 held that, merely asking the students to maintain the dress code by not wearing a hijab does not violate the students’ fundamental right of freedom of conscience and free profession.

“Reference can be made to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Miss Fathema Hussain, a minor Vs. Bharat Education Society and Ors., AIR 2003 BOM 75, wherein a direction issued by the Principal of a High School to a girl student that she could not attend classes wearing head scarf was under challenge. On behalf of the student, it was urged that the direction issued by the Principal was violative of her fundamental right of freedom of conscience and professing, propagating and practicing Islam religion. Considering such challenge, it was held that by merely asking the student to maintain the dress code prescribed by the school, it could not be said that the student’s fundamental right of freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion was violated. There was no breach of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of India” the court said.

The court referred to the infamous Karnataka High Court judgment wherein, a government order banned hijabs in schools and colleges across Karnataka, in this case it was held that this is not violation of Article 25 of the constitution of India.

“In its detailed judgment, the Full Bench held that prescribing such dress code did not result in violation of any fundamental rights as claimed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the dress code when prescribed for all students was intended to treat them as one homogeneous class so as to serve constitutional secularism. The object of prescribing a uniform code would be defeated if there was non uniformity in the matter of uniforms”

“We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench that prescription of a dress code is intended to achieve uniformity amongst students in the school/college so as to maintain discipline and avoid disclosure of one’s religion” said the court.

The court then referred to the case of, Fatima Thanseem (Minor) and another vs. The State of Kerala and others, wherein the court held that an individual cannot seek imposition of his/her fundamental right as against the larger right of the educational institution.

“We may also note that a similar challenge to prescription of dress code by which head scarf and full sleeve shirt prescribed for girl students was the subject matter of challenge before the Kerala High Court in Fatima Thanseem (Minor) and another vs. The State of Kerala and others, (2019) 1 KLT 208. It was held that though there may be a fundamental right for a student to choose a dress of his/her own choice, there was also a fundamental right of establishing, managing and administering an educational institution. Between competing rights, an individual could not seek imposition of his/her fundamental right as against the larger right of the educational institution. On this premise, the challenge was turned down”

The court went on to say that regulation of a dress code is an exercise towards maintaining discipline at the Institution, and this right flows from Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

The court then held that, prescription of the dress code by the college does not offend the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

“We do not find as to how the prescription of the dress code by the College offends the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The object behind prescribing the dress code is evident from the Instructions since they state that the intention is that a student’s religion ought not to be revealed. It is in larger academic interest of the students as well as for the administration and discipline of the College that this object is achieved. This is for the reason that students are expected to attend the educational institution to receive appropriate instructions for advancement of their academic careers” 

The court further held that the college’s dress code did not violate UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, and other educational policies aimed at promoting non-discriminatory environments.

The order of the court can be read here:

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision upholding the hijab ban in colleges is a miscarriage of justice. While the court argues that the dress code is in students’ best interests and promotes uniformity, it fails to consider the fundamental right to freedom of religion and expression.

The court cites previous rulings where dress codes were upheld. However, these cases involved schools and uniforms. A dress code is different from a uniform. In this case, what the court has failed to take note of is that, the dress code is disproportionately affecting only female Muslim students of the college.

Further, the court argues that the dress code promotes secularism. However, secularism does not require the erasure of religious identity.  Ultimately, the court’s decision forces women to choose between education and religious practice, this is a violation of their fundamental rights and a gross miscarriage of justice.

Related:

Nine Muslim students petition Bombay HC, college’s ban on hijab violates fundamental rights

Students challenge Hijab ban, college defends secular dress code – Bombay HC to rule on June 26^th

Hijab ban case: K’taka HC concludes hearing, reserves judgement

Right to Education under attack: Are the Courts misguided in treating the hijab ban case as simply a religious issue?

Hijab ban case: Hijab in line with freedom of expression, submits petitioner

The post Bombay High court upholds hijab ban in colleges: Muslim students’ rights curtailed appeared first on SabrangIndia.