100 Significant Bombay High Court Judgments Of 2021 In Civil, Constitutional And Criminal Law

As the year comes to an end Live Law brings to you a News Digest of 100 Significant Cases from the Bombay High Court in Civil, Constitutional and Criminal Law 1. Bombay High Court Bans Propagation For Sale Of Items Claiming Miraculous or Supernatural Powers via Television Advertisement [Rajendra v. UOI & Ors.] The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held that sale of items, claiming that they possess miraculous or supernatural powers via television advertisement, is illegal. The bench of Justice Tanaji Nalawade and Justice Mukund Sewlikar has also held that the TV channel, telecasting such advertisement, would be liable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. The Petitioner, through his plea, stated that he came across advertisements on TV channels which were propagating that there were special, miraculous and supernatural properties/qualities in Hanuman Chalisa Yantra, which the advertiser was selling. It was further stated that this was a false propaganda and the propaganda was made to exploit the persons, who are superstitious by nature and to exploit them. The Court accordingly issued directions so that such broadcasting of advertisements is stopped immediately. 2. Media Trial During Investigation Interferes With Administration Of Justice; Amounts To Contempt Of Court : Bombay High Court [Nilesh Navalakha & Ors. v. Union of India] A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice GS Kulkarni held that media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to 'contempt of court' as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court also held that media reports interfering with criminal investigation, before the initiation of a trial, can amount to interference with administration of justice. The bench rejected the argument of fair reporting under Section 3 should be available even for reports about investigation. This argument was made on the interpretation that 'judicial proceeding' as defined under Section 3 should cover proceedings from the stage of registration of FIR. Further, the Court issued a slew of directions to regulate media reporting of an ongoing criminal investigation. The order was passed in the backdrop of alleged 'media trial' in actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death case. The bench directed all complaints regarding a programme's content to be handled by an authorized officer of the Central Government under the Cable TV Network Act without involving a private body. 3. Conviction In A Non-Compoundable Case Can't Be Set Aside By HC u/s 482 CrPC On The Ground Of Compromise Except In Rarest Of Rare Cases: Bombay HC (FB) [Saumaya Sanjay Khandare & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra] In a significant judgment, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held that the High Court while exercising the inherent powers under Sec. 482 CrPC cannot set aside the order of conviction of accused in a non-compoundable case merely on the ground that the accused and complainant had arrived at a compromise at a post-conviction stage. However, the Bench comprising Justices N.B Suryawanshi, Vinay Joshi and AS Chandurkar said the same can be done only in the rarest of the rare cases depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The observation came in the wake of a reference made by a division bench of the High Court after a conflict of decisions was observed in three different judgments pronounced by division benches of the High Court. The question of reference came into existence after a division bench of the High Court was of the view that exercise of power under Sec. 482 of CrPC for quashing and setting aside the conviction order must be rarely exercised and the power must be invoked in exceptional circumstances only. 4. "She Chose Female Gender As Her Self-Perceived Gender Identity": Bombay HC Allows Transgender To Contest Polls As Woman Candidate [Anjali Guru Sanjana Jaan v. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department] Noting that Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 permits a transgender person to have a right to be recognised and such transgender is permitted to have a right to self-perceived gender identity, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on January 2, 2021 allowed a transgender to contest village panchayat polls as a Woman candidate. A Bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge allowed the plea filed by Anjali Guru Sanjana Jaan, who challenged an order passed by the Returning Officer who rejected her nomination for the village panchayat polls. The Bench remarked, "In the present case, the petitioner has opted for the female gender as her self-perceived gender identity and makes a solemn statement, which is recorded as the statement made ...

100 Significant Bombay High Court Judgments Of 2021 In Civil, Constitutional And Criminal Law

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags