#nagpur_bench

High Court Upholds Undertrial Prisoner’s Right to Education The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that an undertrial prisoner cannot be denied access to education solely due to incarceration, directing authorities to allow a 69-year-old inmate at Nagpur Central Prison to appear for an LLB examination without incurring escort charges. The court’s decision, delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nivedita Mehta, granted the petitioner, Purushottam Kumar Sinha, the right to attend the Summer 2026 LLB second-semester examination under specific conditions. Sinha, an undertrial prisoner and student of Dr BRA Law College, affiliated with Nagpur University, had sought permission to appear for the exam. His petition argued that the exorbitant escort fees imposed by prison authorities effectively barred him from pursuing his education, violating his constitutional rights under Article 21. The court acknowledged that incarceration should not obstruct a prisoner’s educational progress, emphasizing that denying access to education due to financial constraints would be “harsh and unreasonable.” The court directed Nagpur Central Prison authorities to escort Sinha to the examination center on scheduled dates without charging any fees. It also mandated the deployment of security personnel during his travel and throughout the examination period. Additionally, the bench ordered Dr BRA Law College to provide a separate examination hall and an invigilator for Sinha, while allowing a security cordon around him during the exam. The petitioner’s counsel, NS Padia, had argued that the denial of educational access due to inability to pay escort charges constituted an infringement of the prisoner’s fundamental rights to education and dignity.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #purushottam_kumar_sinha #dr_bra_law_college #nagpur_central_prison

Parents Question June 15 Reopening for CBSE Schools in Vidarbha Parents and education groups in Vidarbha are raising concerns about the decision to reopen CBSE schools on June 15, citing adverse weather conditions that pose risks to students' health. The issue gained attention after the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court sought a response from the state government regarding the timing of school reopenings in the region. While the court’s inquiry focused on state-run schools, parents and associations are now pushing for similar scrutiny of CBSE institutions, which have historically opened earlier than other schools in the area. The debate centers on the region’s extreme heat, which has led to delays in school reopenings for non-CBSE institutions in Vidarbha. Schools in the region typically start after June 26 due to the scorching temperatures, which are significantly higher than in areas like Konkan and Pune. However, CBSE schools in Nagpur have traditionally reopened earlier, often before June 15. This year, the state government mandated that all Vidarbha schools, including CBSE institutions, align with the rest of Maharashtra by reopening on June 15. Yogesh Pathare, national coordinator of the Jagruk Palak Samiti, highlighted the long-standing issue, noting that government orders issued in 2009 and 2012 explicitly recommended delaying the reopening of schools in Vidarbha to avoid the harsh summer heat. These directives, he argued, were ignored, placing students at risk of health complications. Pathare emphasized that the climate in Vidarbha is distinct from other parts of Maharashtra, yet the decision to reopen early continues to disregard these conditions.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #vidarbha #jagruk_palak_samiti #csswa

Census Duty: Teachers Form Legal Groups After School Management Fails To Support Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently granted interim relief from Census duty to the CBSE School Staff Welfare Association (CSSWA), sparking a wave of similar actions by private school teachers across the region. The decision has led many educators, who were left without institutional support, to form informal groups and pool resources to hire legal representation. This development follows a similar relief granted earlier this year to staff from the Sikh Education Society (SES) pharmacy college, which had approached the court after being assigned Census duty. Teachers from various private institutions have expressed frustration over the lack of support from their school management, which has failed to advocate for them despite the legal challenges posed by the Census duty requirement. "The Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) is threatening us with FIRs for not reporting to Census duty, but school owners are doing nothing to defend us," a teacher told The Times of India. Initially, many educators had hoped their school administrations would take similar legal steps, but after months of inaction, they have turned to self-organized efforts. "For over a month, management of different schools did nothing beyond approaching local authorities with appeals. Now, many of us are pooling money to hire a lawyer," another teacher added. The interim relief granted to CSSWA has provided a glimmer of hope for teachers already burdened with academic responsibilities. "We realized that interim relief is only for the petitioners. So, we too have decided to move the court," said a teacher, highlighting the growing urgency among educators to seek legal recourse.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #nagpur_municipal_corporation #cbseschoolstaffwelfareassociation #sikh_education_society_pharmacy_college

Breach Of Contract Alone Not Cheating, Observes HC The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a cheating case involving a 5 crore rupees pharmacy investment dispute, ruling that a breach of contract alone does not constitute a criminal offense unless fraudulent or dishonest intentions are evident from the outset. Justice Vrushali Joshi overturned an FIR filed by Sitabuldi police against a city doctor, stating the dispute was fundamentally a civil matter already pending in a civil court. The case originated from a 2019 agreement where the respondent and associates invested over 5.14 crore rupees to operate a pharmacy at a hospital. The agreement promised monthly business revenues between 60 lakh and 90 lakh rupees, with the hospital owner entitled to an 18% revenue share. However, the complainant alleged financial losses, unmet assurances, and the opening of a parallel pharmacy, leading to the venture’s closure. The petitioner doctor, represented by senior counsel Sunil Manohar and others, argued the complainant defaulted on payments and breached contractual terms, prompting a civil suit for eviction, debt recovery, and damages filed in 2023, which remains unresolved. The court noted that an earlier complaint on the same issue had been closed by police, advising the parties to pursue civil remedies. Despite this, a subsequent complaint led to the FIR’s registration. Justice Joshi called this sequence “surprising,” describing the second FIR as an “arm-twisting tactic.” Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be misused for oblique purposes and should be quashed if conviction chances are “bleak” or if their continuation constitutes an abuse of process.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #sunil_manohar #vrushali_joshi #sitabuldi_police

Bombay High Court Rules Anticipatory Bail Not Valid After Arrest, Even With Transit Relief The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently clarified the legal boundaries of pre-arrest relief, ruling that an anticipatory bail application is not maintainable once an accused has been arrested, regardless of whether transit bail has been granted. The decision, delivered by Justice Rajnish Vyas, centered on a case involving a Nagpur-based individual arrested in Delhi over an FIR registered by Brahmapuri police in Chandrapur. The accused faced serious charges under the Indian Penal Code, the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, and provisions related to illegal organ transplantation. The court framed its ruling around the central issue of whether an accused who had been arrested, produced before a magistrate, and released on transit bail could still invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or relevant provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Sarkar Act (BNSS), 2023. Rejecting the petitioner’s plea, the court emphasized that once an arrest was executed, the legal remedy shifted from anticipatory bail to regular bail. It clarified that pre-arrest protections were no longer applicable after the arrest was completed. The petitioner argued that his arrest was merely a "paper arrest" since transit remand had been denied and he had been granted transit bail. He contended that the possibility of re-arrest justified his request for anticipatory bail. However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that the accused had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court in Chandrapur. Senior counsel Deven Chauhan, representing the government, argued that the petitioner was in "constructive custody" and had already accepted the jurisdiction of the Chandrapur court.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #rajnish_vyas #brahmapuri_police #chandrapur_court

Illegal Nightlife In Dark Shankar Nagar Stretch Under High Court Lens A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, alleging that a cluster of food establishments operating along the dark and overgrown stretch between East Shankar Nagar and Bajaj Nagar Square in Nagpur are engaging in illegal liquor sales and operating beyond permitted hours. The petition, filed by two senior citizens and a doctor, claims that these establishments are serving alcohol without proper licenses and continue operations well past midnight, sometimes until 3 a.m., violating state regulations. The case highlights systemic failures in enforcement by local authorities, with petitioners accusing both police and civic bodies of inaction despite repeated complaints. The PIL, represented by senior counsel Akshay Naik, details that the affected area is prone to heavy vehicular congestion during late hours, exacerbating safety concerns. The court has taken notice of the allegations, with a division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode expressing concerns over illegal constructions and enforcement gaps. The bench specifically flagged issues related to a nullah (a small stream) running through the stretch, noting that eateries have built makeshift bridges over the water channel. This, the petition argues, obstructs natural water flow and creates hazards. The court observed that "water flow cannot be obstructed under any circumstances" after being informed that some establishments have constructed unauthorized bridges over the nullah. These bridges, according to the petition, are used by operators to evade enforcement actions, allowing customers to bypass inspections. The plea also points to encroachments on land belonging to Dr.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #dr_panjabrao_deshmukh_krishi_vidyapeeth #nagpur_municipal_corporation #akshay_nai

After HC rap, NEET centres install coolers, water facilities amid heatwave Nagpur: Following directives from the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, several NEET-UG examination centres across the city implemented enhanced measures to ensure student safety during Sunday’s exam, which coincided with a severe heatwave. The court had emphasized the need for basic facilities to prevent health risks such as dehydration and heat exhaustion. Exam authorities swiftly installed air coolers, fans, and ensured the availability of drinking water across multiple centres, addressing concerns about inadequate ventilation and cooling arrangements. The high court’s intervention came after reports highlighted the lack of proper infrastructure in some centres, including insufficient medical support and access to potable water. The bench warned that such shortcomings could endanger candidates, particularly during extreme weather conditions. In response, exam officials prioritized creating a comfortable environment for students, with measures tailored to each centre’s specific needs. Students who appeared for the exam noted significant improvements compared to previous years. Samaira Bhattad, a candidate at Government Polytechnic, Sadar, described the changes as life-changing. “I’ve appeared for several government exams before, but this time, the experience was much better. Coolers, fans, and drinking water were available, and staff regularly refilled our bottles,” she said. Similar feedback was shared by other students at different centres. At Kamala Nehru College, Aarushi Basode observed that the arrangements had been well-organized. “The presence of coolers, fans, and cold drinking water in classrooms made a big difference,” she remarked.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #neet_ug #government_polytechnic_sadar #kamala_nehru_college

Bombay High Court Orders Rs 25,000 Compensation for Illegal Arrest of 70-Year-Old Man The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled on Monday that a police officer violated constitutional safeguards by arresting a 70-year-old businessman without following mandatory legal procedures. The court directed the state government to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for the infringement on the petitioner’s personal liberty. The decision was made in a case involving a 70-year-old resident of Gandhi Nagar, who was arrested by officers from Ambazari police station. The division bench, comprising Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nivedita Mehta, found that the arrest failed to comply with Supreme Court guidelines and statutory safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the action constituted a breach of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The petitioner, who was arrested in a case filed by his daughter-in-law for allegedly outraging her modesty and other offenses, challenged the arrest through his counsel, PS Tiwari. He argued that despite responding to a police notice, he was detained without adherence to due process. The court examined the case records and noted that while a notice was issued to the petitioner, it did not specify the grounds for arrest. There was also no arrest memorandum or proper documentation, nor was there evidence that relatives were informed of the arrest. These procedural lapses violated key Supreme Court rulings that mandate transparency and accountability in law enforcement. Citing precedents from the apex court, the bench emphasized that arrests in cognizable offenses punishable up to seven years cannot be made automatically.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #urmila_joshi_phalke #nivedita_mehta #gandhi_nagar

HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Three Directors, Denies Relief to Five Others The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to three accused in the deadly explosion at the SBL Energy Ltd plant in Raulgaon, Nagpur district, which killed at least 26 people. The court, presided over by Justice Rajnish Vyas, allowed pre-arrest bail applications for independent directors Ravindra Pokharna, Satyavati Parashar, and Manoj Kumar Prasad. However, it rejected similar relief for senior executives Kedar Pachputre, Alok Awasthi, Shravan Kumar, Alok Chaudhary, and Sanjay Chaudhary, citing the severity of the allegations and the material on record. The explosion occurred on March 1 and is considered one of the deadliest industrial accidents in recent years, prompting concerns about the enforcement of industrial safety norms at both state and national levels. During the hearing, the defense argued for protection from arrest, while the prosecution opposed the pleas, emphasizing the fatal consequences of negligence. The court evaluated the submissions and granted partial relief, allowing anticipatory bail to three applicants while declining it for the remaining five. Lawyers Amol Mardikar and Aditya Chaudhary represented the accused. According to police investigations, the company was allegedly in "serious violation of safety standards," a finding corroborated by reports from the Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation. These reports highlighted multiple lapses, including the absence of risk assessments, inadequate firefighting systems, failure to appoint safety officers, and lack of proper training for workers. Authorities linked these deficiencies directly to the scale of the disaster.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #raulgaon #sbl_energy_ltd #rajnish_vyas

HC warns action over non-compliance with school transport safety orders The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday expressed sharp displeasure over lapses in implementing school bus safety norms, questioning administrative inaction and warning of possible action against the deputy director of education. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode noted that despite clear directives from earlier hearings, essential measures such as issuing notices to schools and installing designated bus stop signage had not been carried out. The court observed that the issue was not being taken seriously, emphasizing that compliance was expected before the reopening of schools. Senior counsel Firdos Mirza assisted the court as amicus curiae, while Deepak Thakare represented the state government and Abhay Sambare appeared for the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The court had previously directed the director to issue notices to all schools regarding adherence to school transport norms. However, during the latest hearing, it emerged that no such notices had been sent. The bench termed this a serious lapse and directed the education secretary to initiate action against the official and submit a report at the next hearing. "There is no compliance made of this order," the bench remarked, questioning why no application had been moved if there were difficulties in implementation. The court directed the department of education secretary and the principal secretary (school education) to examine the matter and take appropriate action against erring officials. The case stemmed from a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated after the death of a schoolchild who was run over by a bus.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #rto #deputy_director_of_education #school_bus_stop

Farmers Eligible for Government Compensation for Crop Damage by Wild Birds, Rules Bombay High Court The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench delivered a landmark ruling on Friday, affirming that farmers who suffer crop damage caused by wild birds are entitled to government compensation, even if the specific species involved are not explicitly listed in official guidelines. The decision, issued by a division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta, overturned the state’s refusal to compensate Wardha farmer Mahadeo Dekate for losses incurred in 2016 when parrots destroyed a significant portion of his pomegranate crop. The case centered on Dekate’s petition, which sought compensation after parrots damaged approximately 50-55% of his 800 pomegranate trees over 1.5 acres near the Bor wildlife sanctuary. A field inspection confirmed the extent of the damage, estimating losses at ₹25 lakh. Despite this, authorities denied compensation, citing that parrots were not included in government resolutions (GRs) issued in 2010 and 2013, which only covered damage caused by specific wild animals like wild boar, deer, monkeys, and elephants. The court rejected the state’s argument, emphasizing that parrots are classified as “wild animals” under Schedule II of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The bench held that the law mandates compensation for losses caused by protected wildlife, and excluding certain species from eligibility would violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. “The law expects every citizen to be a protector of wild animals,” the judges stated. “It cannot be expected to suffer losses because of these animals. The very purpose of giving protection to animals would be frustrated.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #urmila_joshi_phalke #nivedita_mehta #mahadeo_dekate

PIL Filed Over Nagpur University Result Delays and Mismanagement A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, alleging systemic flaws in the examination process, prolonged delays in result declarations, and administrative mismanagement at Nagpur University. The petition, submitted by Neeraj Dharashivkar, highlights recurring issues that have adversely affected thousands of students’ academic progress. The PIL accuses the university of chronic inefficiencies, including repeated failures to adhere to declared timetables for examinations, significant delays in announcing results, and inadequate evaluation of answer scripts. It further points out that errors in results are frequently discovered, while the re-evaluation process often takes an unreasonable amount of time to complete. These problems, the petition states, have become a regular feature of the university’s examination system. Students are reportedly facing severe mental stress due to the delays, which directly impact their academic performance. The petition emphasizes that delayed results disrupt admissions to higher education courses, employment opportunities, and participation in competitive examinations. Several students, the plea notes, encounter difficulties during admission processes because results are not declared on time. The university administration is accused of apathy, with the petition stating that despite repeated complaints and formal representations, no concrete corrective measures have been implemented. It also criticizes the lack of transparency and accountability in the conduct and management of examinations.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #nagpur_university #public_interest_litigation #neeraj_dharashivkar

HC Orders Release of Salaries for Shalarth Teachers, Pulls Up State The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed the Maharashtra government to release pending salaries of over 600 teachers and non-teaching staff linked to the Shalarth ID controversy. The court emphasized that wages cannot be withheld without due process or prior notice, while allowing the state to continue its inquiry into the validity of appointments. A division bench comprising Justices Mukulika Jawalkar and Nandesh Deshpande observed that the state may question the legality of appointments but cannot unilaterally stop salaries without following legal procedures. The court partially granted relief to the petitioners, ensuring immediate payment of salaries while permitting the government to verify documents and recruitment processes. The dispute originated in February 2025 when allegations of fraudulent Shalarth IDs surfaced, prompting the state to investigate appointments made during that period. As a result, salaries for the affected teachers were suspended from March 2025, leading to widespread litigation. In its affidavit, the state argued that several appointments were not made in accordance with statutory norms, rendering the Shalarth IDs invalid. It maintained that no right to government salary arises from illegal appointments and stressed its responsibility to protect public funds. However, the court highlighted procedural flaws in the government’s actions, noting that affected employees were not provided with notices or an opportunity to respond before their salaries were halted. The bench reiterated that administrative decisions must adhere to principles of natural justice.#maharashtra_government #bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #shalarth_id_controversy #justices_mukulika_jawalkar_nandesh_deshpande

Tadoba Rescue Centre Awaits Final Approval as Forest Department Seeks High Court Clearance The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday signaled that the long-delayed proposal to establish a rescue centre within the Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve is nearing completion, with only one critical procedural approval remaining. The court directed authorities to expedite the process by submitting a proposal to the chief secretary to seek judicial clearance for construction in the reserve’s core or buffer zones. The development comes amid growing concerns over the health of the tiger “Chhota Matka” and the need for specialized facilities to care for injured or vulnerable wildlife in protected areas. The court’s intervention followed a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated over the deteriorating condition of “Chhota Matka,” a tiger whose health has raised alarms among conservationists. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode was informed that most clearances for the rescue centre have already been secured. The Maharashtra Forest Development Corporation (FDCM) stated in its affidavit that the project now awaits final approval linked to pending proceedings before the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that this procedural requirement should not cause unnecessary delays and ordered the FDCM to file an interlocutory application for specific relief or exemption. The rescue centre’s urgency stems from systemic gaps in wildlife management within the reserve. The court expanded the scope of the case to address broader issues, including the lack of infrastructure for treating injured animals.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #tadoba_andhari_tiger_reserve #chhota_matka #maharashtra_forest_development_corporation

Custody Alone Doesn’t Amount To Arrest: HC The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently clarified that taking a person into custody does not equate to formal arrest, emphasizing that legal safeguards under criminal law are only triggered when an arrest is officially made. Justice MM Nerlikar, presiding over the case, stated that custody and arrest are distinct legal concepts, and that the protections outlined in Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita apply only after a formal arrest. The ruling came as the court granted bail to an accused in a murder case, highlighting procedural violations in the arrest process. The case originated from a crime registered at Gadchiroli police station, where the accused was linked to an incident involving a woman found with fatal head injuries. The petitioner’s counsel, MA Deo, argued that the accused was taken into custody from Pune on April 17, 2025, but was formally arrested and produced before a magistrate only on April 18. The prosecution, represented by public prosecutor SZ Haider, contended that the timeline for legal safeguards should begin from the moment of formal arrest, asserting that the accused was presented before the magistrate within 24 hours of that arrest. However, the court examined station diary entries and other records, concluding that the accused had been under police control since April 17. While acknowledging that "custody does not include arrest, however arrest includes custody," Justice Nerlikar emphasized that investigative agencies cannot bypass procedural requirements by delaying formal arrest despite holding a person in custody.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #ma_deo #sz_haider #gadchiroli_police_station

HC Grants Bail To Five In SBL Blast Case, Rejects Pleas Of Six Others The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court on Saturday granted bail to five of the 11 accused arrested in connection with the SBL's Raulgaon unit blast that claimed 26 lives. Those granted bail include Roshan Raut, Rajendra Pardhi, Sudhakar Uparkar, Pankaj Pande, and Nilkamal Dongre. The remaining six accused—Chandramohan Rajwade, Vilas Malwe, Sandeep Solanki, Pradeep Sharma, Ravi Kamra, and Rakesh Tiwari—were denied relief, though the court did not specify the reasons for their rejection in open proceedings. The explosion occurred on March 1 within the company premises, resulting in the deaths of 26 workers. Investigators attributed the tragedy to significant lapses in safety protocols. According to police findings and reports from the Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health (DISH) as well as the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), the facility lacked adequate risk assessment mechanisms, had insufficient firefighting systems, failed to appoint the required number of safety officers, and did not provide proper training to workers. All 11 accused had approached the high court after a sessions court rejected their bail applications. Their legal representatives included Chinmay Dharmadhikari, Advait Manohar, and Aditya Chaudhary. Separately, arguments commenced on Saturday in anticipatory bail pleas filed by eight absconding accused in the same case. The court scheduled the next hearing in that matter for April 22. The case highlights systemic regulatory failures in industries handling hazardous materials.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #petroleum_and_explosives_safety_organisation #sbl_raulgaon_unit_blast #directorate_of_industrial_safety_and_health

First pay demolition cost, then argue: HC to N Kumar The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a developer’s plea to challenge demolition orders for illegal constructions at Poonam Chambers and Poonam Tower, citing non-compliance with financial obligations. Developer N Kumar was directed to deposit ₹41.37 lakh with the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) to cover demolition costs, but the court refused to entertain his submissions after he failed to make even the initial deposit of ₹9 lakh. Justice Urmila Phalke Joshi and Justice Nivedita Mehta expressed frustration over Kumar’s repeated disregard for the court’s directives, emphasizing that financial responsibility must be fulfilled before legal arguments could proceed. The dispute originated from Kumar’s petition challenging notices issued by the NMC for unauthorized structures in the two buildings. During the hearing, the NMC informed the court that demolition at Poonam Tower had already been completed, while work on Poonam Chambers was ongoing and nearing completion. The court’s order underscored the urgency of resolving financial obligations, stating that the developer’s failure to comply with the demolition costs would hinder the legal process. The bench also criticized Kumar’s legal representation, noting that he had been instructed to appear in person or engage a qualified advocate. Instead, Kumar continued to be represented by a chartered accountant, Abhiruchi Agrawal, which drew further scrutiny from the judges. The court’s remarks highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural norms, particularly in cases involving public infrastructure and compliance with municipal regulations.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #nagpur_municipal_corporation #n_kumar #poonam_chambers

HC Stays Census Duty Orders for Private College Staff The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently stayed orders compelling faculty and staff of private unaided colleges to undertake Census duties, granting interim relief and raising questions about the legal authority behind such appointments. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta issued notices to the Centre and the state government, directing them to respond by April 24. The court’s interim order halted the implementation of directives issued on April 5 and 6, which mandated the immediate deployment of staff from a pharmacy college run by The Sikh Education Society for Census work, with warnings of criminal action for noncompliance. The petition challenging these orders argued that private unaided college employees cannot be mandatorily assigned Census duties. Petitioner’s counsel, Purushottam Patil, cited precedents from the Delhi and Gujarat High Courts to contend that such appointments lack legal backing and could disrupt academic functioning. He emphasized that compelling faculty to participate in Census work during an ongoing academic schedule, particularly close to university examinations, would adversely affect students. The court was also informed that criminal cases had been initiated against some employees for failing to comply with the orders. Taking note of these submissions, the bench granted interim relief and observed that the issue of authority remains under consideration. It noted that available records do not clearly indicate whether the state government had delegated such powers to the municipal authority in question.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #anil_pansare #nivedita_mehta #sikh_education_society

Stopping Wife From Entering Kitchen Is Cruelty, Rules HC Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that preventing a wife from entering the kitchen of her matrimonial home constitutes mental cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court refused to quash an FIR against the husband while granting relief to his mother-in-law. In a recent order, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke found that the allegations against the Nagpur-based husband disclosed a prima facie case of cruelty, while those against the mother-in-law were deemed vague and nonspecific. The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman in Akola, who alleged that after her marriage on November 29, 2022, her husband frequently quarreled with her, restricted her movements, and barred her from visiting her parents’ home. She claimed she was prevented from cooking, forced to obtain food from outside, and subjected to humiliation, including having her belongings thrown out and being pressured to seek divorce. The husband challenged the FIR filed in 2024, arguing that the complaint was a “counterblast” to his divorce petition and contained only general allegations. The prosecution and the complainant opposed the plea, asserting that the accusations clearly established mental cruelty. The court agreed with the prosecution, noting that the allegations against the husband were specific and indicative of wilful conduct causing mental harm. However, the court also observed that the mother-in-law’s allegations were general, omnibus, and fake, as they were made because she was the complainant-wife’s mother-in-law. The court quashed the FIR and related proceedings against the mother-in-law.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #urmila_joshi_phalke #section_498a_ipc #nagpur_husband

HC Flags 'Misconduct' by Lawyer for Misleading Court The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has taken serious disciplinary action against an advocate accused of misleading the court and representing multiple respondents without proper authorization. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer. The court emphasized that the misconduct involved filing a vakalatnama (legal power of attorney) for a single respondent but continuing to represent multiple parties in proceedings spanning several hearings. The case originated from a petition filed by Pushpa Gupta, who sought the removal of unauthorized construction on government land near Bhange Lawn on Wardha Road. She alleged illegal occupation of the plot and requested its demolition. During earlier hearings, the court found that the respondents had relied on forged documents to mislead the judiciary, prompting the issuance of contempt notices against them. The bench noted that orders dated March 30 and April 2, 2026, were passed based on the lawyer’s submissions, which were later revealed to be misleading. The court observed that the lawyer’s actions constituted "misconduct" and referred the matter to the Bar Council for disciplinary action. It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bhagwan Singh versus State of U.P. (2025), which warned against "professional misconduct" by lawyers. The bench highlighted that advocates are officers of the court and play a critical role in the justice delivery system. It emphasized that the public places immense trust in the judiciary and that lawyers must act with "responsibility and seriousness.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #bar_council_of_maharashtra_and_goa #pushpa_gupta #bhange_lawn