Restaurant owners move Bombay HC against police raids despite earlier court order allowing ‘herbal hookah'
The petitioners claimed that such actions were being taken despite the HC verdict of August 2019 which permitted restaurants to serve herbal hookah and the same was complied with by the owners.
A bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a plea by 12 restaurant owners argued through advocates Rajendra Rathod and Dhruv Jain.
The petitioners include owners/operators of Ustaadi at Crawford Market, The Nest in Bandra, Rustico in Fort, Faham restaurant in Kala Ghoda among others.
The high court granted time to state government lawyer to take instructions to respond to the plea and granted liberty to the petitioners to amend the petition with additional information.
The actions were allegedly being taken based on June 6, 2025 circular of the home department to police which stipulated that if illegal hookah parlours are found at any location, the responsible police officers must be held accountable and strict action should be taken against them.
'These acts of illegally and unlawfully shutting down the service of herbal hookah at the petitioners' restaurants and threatening to shut down the petitioners' restaurants completely, are not only causing huge monetary losses to the petitioners but also directly affecting the earning capacity and livelihood of their employees,' the plea stated.
The petitioners sought direction from the court to the respondent police authorities not to enter their restaurants for any purpose including search without following due procedure under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The petitioners also sought direction to the authorities to comply with the August 2019 order of the HC enabling them to serve herbal hookah and to stop 'illegal and unlawful raids' and threats to the petitioners' restaurants. The plea also sought no coercive action against petitioners for serving herbal or tobacco-free hookah at their establishments.
The petitioners also sought direction to authorities that the June 6 circular would not be applicable to them as they are serving herbal/tobacco-free hookah. The HC is likely to hear the plea next on August 6.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Wayanad landslides: HC quashes case against two persons for comments against CMDRF donations
Kochi: Tackling people expressing dissent or criticism through criminal cases is an affront to the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, high court has held. Justice V G Arun delivered the ruling while quashing a criminal case and further proceedings against V S Gowri Sankari of Thiruvananthapuram and U Prasant Bellulaya of Kasaragod, accused of posting negative comments in a WhatsApp group about the solicitation of contributions to the chief minister's distress relief fund (CMDRF) for the rehabilitation of Wayanad landslide victims. The Bakal police had booked the petitioners under Sections 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause a riot) and 45 (assisting or encouraging another person to commit a crime) of BNS, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 120(o) (causing nuisance to any person by repeated or undesirable communication) of the Kerala Police Act. HC observed that the mere fact that comments are unpalatable to some people, or even to the govt, is no reason to initiate criminal prosecution. The remarks, though critical of the govt, were within the bounds of law. Finding the comments to be fair criticism, HC held that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law and a violation of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. The bench further noted that the comments referred to alleged misutilisation of donated funds and criticised the political party in power. Assuming that such remarks could incite a riot or cause nuisance was "preposterous", HC said. It also observed that the govt's request for contributions could not be treated as a 'direction,' and therefore, cautioning WhatsApp group members before making donations would not amount to refusal of a direction under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 hours ago
- Business Standard
Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID not proof of citizenship: Bombay HC ruling decoded
The Bombay High Court on 12 August ruled that owning an Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter ID, or even a passport is not enough to prove you are an Indian citizen. This decision came while rejecting the bail plea of an alleged Bangladeshi man accused of illegally entering India and obtaining forged documents. The bench emphasised that under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual. The accused had claimed to be Indian but failed to produce valid citizenship documents such as a passport or a certificate issued under Indian law. The ruling reinforces that possession of commonly used identity documents does not override the legal requirement to prove nationality. What the Case Was About The man in question, Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, was arrested on charges of: Illegal entry into India Possessing forged Indian identity documents Potential national security violations During the investigation, authorities allegedly found Bangladeshi birth certificates on his phone. While he claimed Indian citizenship and produced Aadhaar, PAN, and voter ID, the court found these insufficient as proof of nationality. Justice Amit Borkar, after reviewing the evidence, observed that citizenship claims must be tested strictly under the Citizenship Act and that the burden of proof lies with the accused when credible evidence raises doubts about nationality. 'The allegations in this case are not small. It is not just about staying in India without permission or overstaying a visa. It is about making and using fake and forged identity documents like Aadhaar card, PAN card, and Voter ID, with the aim of pretending to be an Indian citizen.' "The Bombay High Court rejected regular bail for the applicant, booked under BNS u/s 335, 336(3), 340/3(5), Passport Act u/s 3(a), 6(a) and Foreigners Order u/s 3(1), 3(2), 14, after forensic extraction from his phone disclosed Bangladeshi birth certificates (his and his mother's) and CDR/IPDR logs revealed persistent cross-border calls to Bangladesh-linked numbers. Invoking section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Court held that this credible prosecution evidence shifts the burden to the applicant to prove Indian citizenship; until such proof is furnished, mere possession of unverified Aadhaar, PAN or Voter ID cards whose authenticity is still under UIDAI scrutiny cannot establish nationality or justify release," said Rahul Sundaram, Partner, IndiaLaw LLP. What the Court Said Justice Amit Borkar, delivering the order, made three key points: Identification ≠ Citizenship Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID, and passports are meant to verify identity for services and voting, not to establish nationality. Citizenship Must Be Proven Under the Citizenship Act, 1955 To prove you are an Indian citizen, you must show eligibility through: Birth in India before a certain cut-off date Indian parentage Registration or naturalisation as per law "Under Indian law, documents like Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID establish identity or residence—not citizenship—and the Bombay High Court has rightly held that citizenship must be proved strictly in accordance with the Citizenship Act, 1955 and recognised legal evidence," said Athira Sajan, Associate Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys. Burden of Proof Is on the Individual Under the Foreigners Act, if the state presents credible evidence that raises doubt about a person's citizenship, it is the individual's responsibility to prove they are Indian. The Laws Involved Citizenship Act, 1955 — Defines how citizenship is acquired and the documents needed to prove it. Foreigners Act, 1946 (Section 9) — Places the burden of proof on the person suspected of being a foreign national. Representation of the People Act — Governs voter ID issuance, which is not linked to a citizenship verification process as rigorous as the Citizenship Act. Why Your Aadhaar or Voter ID May Not Be Enough Aadhaar is issued based on proof of identity and residence — not nationality. PAN card is for tax purposes — foreign nationals can also obtain one. Voter ID is linked to electoral rolls — errors or fraudulent enrolment can occur. Passport requires some citizenship verification but can be obtained fraudulently. In short: These documents are valid for day-to-day identification but are not decisive proof of nationality in a court of law. Implications of the Ruling Legal Scrutiny in Citizenship Disputes If your citizenship is challenged, you'll need documentary evidence like birth certificates, parentage records, or official nationality certificates. Stricter Checks for Border Cases
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Extortion racket' in Tihar Jail: 9 officials suspended
The Delhi government on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court that it has suspended nine Tihar jail officials and initiated disciplinary proceedings against them over allegations of their involvement in running an extortion racket in connivance with jail inmates. The submission comes after the HC had sought details from the Delhi government's Home Department on the action it has taken following the court's earlier direction to conduct an inquiry into the administrative lapses. On Monday, the HC had also directed the CBI to lodge an FIR and investigate illegal and corrupt activities in the city's jails, involving authorities and inmates. This came after the CBI had submitted a preliminary inquiry report, after perusal of which the court had observed that it indicates 'the involvement of inmates and jail officials in various kinds of illegal and corrupt activities'. The government on Wednesday said it will file a report within two months, even as the court orally remarked, 'Please follow disciplinary rules strictly', referring to CCS Rules. The bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted eight weeks to the government to file its status report. In response to a petition alleging that inmates, with the help of jail authorities, were involved in irregularities and misconduct to 'exact illegal money', the High Court on May 2 directed the CBI to carry out a preliminary inquiry. It also asked the Home Department to conduct a separate investigation into administrative lapses. Last September, based on the allegations made in the petition, the HC had directed the Inspecting Judge of Tihar Jail to examine the evidence as well as the allegations in the petition and file his report. The court, upon perusal of the report by the Inspecting Judge — submitted in sealed cover — had recorded that 'very disturbing and startling facts have been revealed pointing not only to certain irregularities and illegalities in the functioning of Tihar Jail but also to issues touching upon even criminal activities going on there.' The report had also recorded how the official landline number in the jail was being 'misused by vested interests for promoting nefarious activities'.
