Bombay High Court junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹1 lakh cost
Finding no merit in the Public Interest Litigation and a writ petition filed against GR of March 12, 2024, the court also imposed a cost of one lakh on the petitioners.
The pleas were dismissed by a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne on July 22.
As per the detailed order, made available on Friday, the bench ruled that the challenge to the government's decision was 'totally baseless and deserves rejection'.
The court said it did not find any error in the GR concerning the procurement of five items under a special action plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds.
'Thus, no interference was warranted in the tender process implemented for procurement of the said items,' it said.
The March 12, 2024, GR details the procurement and supply of five items – battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags – to farmers.
'The said petition is filed by an association of manufacturers of sprayers, who have no locus standi to challenge the implementation of special action plan by the state government,' the bench said.
The court said that to protect their private interest, manufacturers and traders cannot be permitted to challenge the broader scheme to facilitate the productivity enhancement of the listed crop.
The petitioners had contended that the five items were removed from an earlier GR dated December 5, 2016, which allowed farm subsidies through the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme and were included in the new GR, which provides for their procurement through state agencies.
The state agencies, including Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited, procured these items at 'exorbitant' rates, claimed the PIL.
Senior advocate, Nikhil Sakhardande, who represented the petitioners, told the court that the DBT scheme was more beneficial to farmers, allowing them to purchase items at cheaper rates from local traders. The new system favoured large contractors, he argued.
Appearing for the state government, senior advocate V.R. Dhond contended that the earlier GR operated under different objectives.
He stated that the March 2024 GR was aimed at enhancing productivity and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseed crops, which he called a broader programme not limited to just product procurement.
The HC accepted the state's arguments and said the two GRs operate in 'completely different and independent spheres' with distinct objectives. The petitioners had 'erroneously mixed up the two GRs which have no nexus with each other', it held.
Further, the bench held that these 'baseless' petitions created hurdles in the effective implementation of the plan, aimed at giving impetus to the cultivation of specified crops and benefiting farmers.
'For this reason, also, while dismissing the petitions, we are inclined to impose costs (Rs 1 lakh) on the petitioners,' the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
5 minutes ago
- NDTV
"What Is Management Doing": Top Court On Rising Student Suicides
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious concern over rising student suicides in educational institutions, questioning the management of IIT Kharagpur and Sharda University over their handling of recent cases. A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, while hearing a suo motu case, demanded accountability from both institutions. "Why are students committing suicide? What is the management doing?" the Bench asked pointedly, directing both Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal police to file detailed status reports within four weeks. In the case of Sharda University, the court was informed by Amicus Curiae Aparna Bhatt that the father of the dental student had lodged an FIR two hours after the incident. A suicide note was found, and two individuals have been arrested. However, the court criticised the university for not following prior Supreme Court directives. "Did the students inform the father? Why didn't the college management communicate this? Is it not their responsibility to inform the police and the parents immediately?" the court asked, raising concerns over administrative negligence. The Bench stopped short of further comment, noting that investigations are still underway. In the IIT Kharagpur case, Bhatt informed the court that the local police had not provided her with any substantive updates, drawing further criticism from the Bench. On July 21, the Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of two student suicides - one involving a fourth-year engineering student from the premier IIT Kharagpur and the other a second-year BDS student from Sharda University in Greater Noida. The top court had then sought explanations from the institutions on whether police had been promptly informed to facilitate criminal investigations. The court also warned that failure to register First Information Reports (FIRs) without delay could result in contempt proceedings against the institutions involved. Ritam Mandal, a fourth-year mechanical engineering student enrolled in a five-year dual degree program at IIT Kharagpur, died by suicide on July 18. He was a resident of Kolkata. His death marks the fourth such incident on the IIT Kharagpur campus since January 2025. Earlier this year, on January 12, the body of Shaon Mallick, a third-year electronics engineering student, was found hanging in his hostel room. In Greater Noida, Jyoti Sharma, a second-year BDS student at Sharda University, also died by suicide in her hostel, raising further alarm over student mental health and institutional accountability.
NDTV
31 minutes ago
- NDTV
Include Aadhaar, Voter ID: Supreme Court To Poll Body On Bihar Rolls Revision
New Delhi: Bihar voters should be allowed to submit Adhaar and voter Identity card as documents for the Special Intensive Revision, the Supreme Court told the Election Commission today during a hearing on the issue. The court pointed out that the risk of forgery - which was what the Commission had cited to rule out the three crucial documents including ration card - could happen for any of the 11 it had allowed. "There's presumption of correctness with official documents, you proceed with these 2 documents. You will include these two documents (Aadhaar and EPIC)...Wherever you find forgery, that's on case-to-case basis. Any document on the earth can be forged," Justice Surya Kant remarked. instead of "en masse exclusion", there should be, "en masse inclusion", Justice Kant told the Commission. The court, though, refused to stop the publication of the draft rolls on August 1, making it clear that the final outcome would be subject to the decision on the appeals pending in the court. The two-judge bench of Justice Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi did not hold a detailed hearing today as Justice Kant had to attend an administrative meeting with the Chief Justice of India in the afternoon. Assuring the petitioners that the matters will be heard at the earliest, Justice Kant asked the lawyers to submit the tentative times required for argument by tomorrow. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms - one of the petitioners in the case - pressed for a stay, contending that it would inconvenience nearly 4.5 crore people as those excluded will have to wade through massive paperwork to seek inclusion. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, requested the court not to interfere as it was only a draft list. Justice Surya Kant said the court can ultimately strike down the entire process if any illegality was found. The petitioners had told the top court that the Commission was violating a previous order of the Supreme Court which had suggested that it consider Aadhaar cards, Electoral Photo Identity Cards and Ration Cards. The Commission, however, said that it has already flagged its reservations about these documents, citing several fake ration cards. The bench, however, verbally told the Commission again to consider at least the statutory documents of Aadhaar and EPIC.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
TIP-ping Point: 7/11 Blasts And Judicial Lottery
The 7/11 case has yet again raised disturbing questions about the moral compass of Indian criminal jurisprudence. The conscience of the nation stands enraged. Both possibilities speak volumes of systemic failure. Either the then coalition Government in Maharashtra in 2006 oversaw a catastrophic collapse in investigation and prosecution, letting terrorists walk free. Or we incarcerated innocent men for the last 19 years. Both scenarios paint a profoundly disturbing picture of our justice system. The 11 dark minutes of July 11, 2006, when seven coordinated bomb blasts ripped through Mumbai's suburban railway network, scarred the city forever. The carnage claimed 209 lives and injured over 700. Swift arrests followed; 13 men were accused, 12 were convicted – five sentenced to death, the rest to life imprisonment. But on July 21, 2025, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 convicted men. The Court found the prosecution to have faltered at the most fundamental level. The judgment exposes a central tension: a conflict between state capacity and judicial threshold. Crimes of this nature are intrinsically difficult to investigate and prosecute. Probes must navigate intricate webs of terror planning and execution, all while racing against time. Every passing moment results in evidentiary decay. Yet, when this challenge of capacity meets the rigorous standards of 'innocent until proven guilty', verdicts like the one in this case become inevitable. This case has yet again raised disturbing questions about the moral compass of Indian criminal jurisprudence. A recurring affliction in our criminal system is the doctrine of 'uncertain-fatality', an interpretive fragility that leaves outcomes to the temperaments of individual judges. The United States follows a clear standard- the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, where any illegally procured evidence is automatically inadmissible. India has adopted a different course. Indian courts are notably more liberal in admitting evidence, even if tainted by illegality, choosing instead to assign it probative value after scrutiny. Our courts separate the wheat from the chaff, i.e., they painstakingly distinguish believable evidence from the rest. Yet this process of legal surgery varies by the skill and subjectivity of the surgeon. Similar cases with similar flaws have passed the muster before other courts. But the Bombay High Court, in this case, deemed the lapses to be fatal. The real fatality, it seems, is even-handed justice. Your ability to secure relief as a kin of the deceased now hinges disproportionately on the courtroom lottery. In this case, the Bombay High Court took a sword to the scalpel, with one blow, it declared the prosecution's case to have 'utterly failed.' The concern lies not in the judges having taken a particular view, but in the inconsistency and subjectivity with which criminal justice is dispensed. The Bombay High Court, while acquitting all convicts, based its reasoning primarily on the flawed Test Identification Parade (TIP). Put simply, in a TIP, the accused is made to stand in a lineup with others of similar physique and features, and the eyewitness is invited to pick out the suspect. The very act of correctly identifying the accused lends strength and credibility to the witness's courtroom testimony. Under Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, TIP serves a dual purpose: first, it helps the investigating agency confirm if they are on the right track; second, it offers corroboration for in-court identification. It becomes a critical evidentiary tool, helping place the accused at the relevant location and time. The procedure, however, is stringent. TIPs must be conducted by a Magistrate, not the police, and preferably within jail premises to minimise external influence. Witnesses must be called individually, barred from communication with each other, and asked to describe what they saw. Every reaction must be recorded in detail. In this case, the Bombay High Court excluded the identification evidence entirely. It held that TIPs were conducted by Shri Barve, a Special Executive Officer, who had no legal authority to carry them out. This procedural violation- TIPs must be supervised by a Magistrate, was not a mere technical lapse. According to the Court, it rendered the identification process void and left it open to manipulation. Consequently, the identifications made by witnesses were deemed inadmissible. The prosecution, which had heavily relied on these TIPs, now found itself without the very foundation of its case. What remained was dock identification, witnesses identifying the accused in court nearly four years later. But that raised a pivotal legal question: can someone credibly identify an individual they only saw momentarily, years ago, without memory aids or prior interaction? The High Court concluded they could not. No distinguishing features. No extended observation. No credibility. Thus, even the courtroom identifications were stripped of their evidentiary weight. The very eyewitness testimony on which the prosecution had built its case crumbled, ironically, not due to falsehood, but due to the prosecution's own procedural lapses. This would be an acceptable outcome, had other courts taken such a strict approach. But that is not the case. Courts across India continue to admit TIP evidence despite glaring procedural irregularities. That inconsistency needs urgent review by the Supreme Court of India. Another major blow to the prosecution was its reliance on stock witnesses- individuals who appear as panch or eyewitnesses in multiple unrelated cases. For instance, Vishal Parmar claimed to have seen Accused No. 4 board the train with a black rexine bag and disembark without it. The Court flagged him as unreliable, as he had served as a panch witness in multiple prior cases, including those involving officers from this very trial. His employer, Mukesh Rabadiya, was similarly discredited as a stock witness. Yet in Nana Keshav Lagad v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Supreme Court clarified that merely appearing as a witness in multiple cases does not invalidate testimony by itself. This raises legitimate questions about the Bombay High Court's choice to outright dismiss such testimony here. The trouble is, this was bound to happen. When judicial discretion is left unbounded by consistent thresholds, some courts interpret lapses as fatal, others see them as fixable. This divergence undermines the rule of law. And the stakes are extraordinarily high in cases involving such enormous human tragedy. Just as troubling is the message this sends to the investigative machinery: that mistakes may or may not matter, depending on the bench. Impunity thrives in uncertainty. We urgently need clear, consistent, and constitutionally sound standards, replacing what has become a wild west of discretion in criminal procedure. Criminal justice must be precise. We must know what is acceptable and what is not. top videos View all The Supreme Court has issued notice in the criminal appeal. The legal questions answered by the Bombay High Court now await constitutional scrutiny. The author is a Senior Supreme Court Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General of India. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts Mumbai train blasts view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 28, 2025, 15:57 IST News opinion Opinion | TIP-ping Point: 7/11 Blasts And Judicial Lottery Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
