HC Affirms Right to Be Forgotten in Quashed FIR Case The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently reaffirmed that the constitutional right to privacy includes the “right to be forgotten,” directing its registry to anonymize the identity of a man whose criminal case was quashed nearly eight years ago. The court also ordered the removal of his name from publicly searchable court records. A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta passed the order while allowing a criminal writ petition filed by a 37-year-old environment and climate change consultant from Jaipur. His identity was withheld in the proceedings as “ABC” due to the quashed FIR. The petitioner sought directions to mask his name and other personal identifiers from digitally accessible versions of orders related to two criminal cases. The FIR, registered against him in 2017 at Bajaj Nagar police station in Nagpur, was quashed following an amicable settlement between the parties. The petitioner argued that unredacted court records remained available on the high court website and were indexed by internet search engines, adversely affecting his professional opportunities and causing social stigma to his family. He contended that the continued availability of the records violated his fundamental right to privacy. The state opposed the petition but did not dispute the petitioner’s right to privacy, submitting that an appropriate order could be passed. The bench allowed the plea, emphasizing that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The judges noted that the concept of the “right to be forgotten” encompasses the right to have personal information removed from public records when criminal proceedings are quashed.#nagpur #jaipur #bombay_high_court #urmila_joshi_phalke #nivedita_mehta
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
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
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
