Centre notifies appointment of Aarti Sathe, 2 others as judges of Bombay High Court
Earlier this month, the opposition in Maharashtra—including NCP ( SP) MLA Rohit Pawar—questioned the SC Collegium's recommendation stating that she was a former spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP and the judiciary was required to be 'free and impartial'.
On July 28, along with Sathe, the SC Collegium had recommended appointment of advocates Ajit Kadethankar and Sushil Ghodeswar as judges of the Bombay High Court.
On Wednesday, the Centre issued a notification clearing the appointment of three lawyers as additional judges of the Bombay HC.
'In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 224 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint (i) Shri Ajit Bhagwanrao Kadethankar, (ii) Shri Sushil Manohar Ghodeswar and (iii) Ms. Aarti Arun Sathe, to be Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court, in that order of seniority, for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices,' the Centre's notification reads.
Sathe was appointed spokesperson of the Maharashtra BJP in February, 2023 and had resigned in January 2024 citing 'personal and professional reasons'. She had also resigned from the primary membership of the party and as head of the Mumbai BJP legal cell on January 6, 2024.
With over two decades of legal practice, Sathe has primarily dealt with tax disputes and appeared before various forums including Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) , Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), and Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) along with matrimonial disputes before the Bombay High Court.
During early years as a lawyer, she worked with the Economic Law Practice (ELP) and was a part of senior lawyer Percy Pardiwala's chamber. She has also argued cases in the Supreme Court and other High Courts.
Maharashtra BJP had dismissed opposition's charges claiming that Sathe's recommendation was 'purely merit-based and within the legal framework' and was made almost a year-and-a-half after she resigned from the party and she has 'no connection with the party.'
The Bombay HC currently has a total of 66 judges, including 50 permanent and 16 additional judges. After the three lawyers take oath as additional judges, the strength will go up to 69. The sanctioned strength of the Bombay High Court, which is the second largest in the country after the Allahabad High Court, is 94.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Same-sex couple moves court against Income Tax Act
A same-sex couple has challenged a discriminatory tax law in Bombay High Court. The couple argues that the law unfairly taxes gifts between same-sex partners. Heterosexual couples do not face this tax burden. The petitioners claim this violates constitutional rights. The court admitted the petition and will notify the Attorney General. The LGBTQIA+ community is closely watching the case. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads 'The love that dare not speak its name' spoke up against an 'uneven' tax code on Thursday morning at Room number 6 of the Bombay High Court, a theatre of many epic legal battles. A same-sex couple, in a relationship for years, has moved the court, challenging the law that discriminates against them by taxing the gifts received by one partner from the Income Tax Act, no such tax on gifts is levied for a heterosexual couple, even if the partners are not formally married but are presumed to be in a marriage. They are not taxed simply because they have the possibility of getting to the petitioners, such unequal economic treatment to same-sex couples, who may be in a long, stable relationship, would amount to a denial of the equal protection of the law on the basis of sex --- a form of discrimination prohibited by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of the petition, the bench comprising Justice and Firdoush Pooniwalla said the court would send a notice to the Attorney General as it raises a constitutional petitioners, Payio Ashiho, a homemaker, and his partner Vivek Divan, a lawyer who had practised at the High Court and worked at the UN headquarters, were represented by Advocate Dr Dhruv to curb tax evasion, Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act taxes any money, property, or other assets received without adequate consideration if their value exceeds Rs 50,000. Such receipts or gifts are categorised as 'income from other sources'. However, as per the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x), such gifts are not treated as 'income from other sources' and therefore not taxed, when received from 'relatives', which also includes 'spouses' (a term that the statute does not separately explain).Unlike the partners in a heterosexual couple, the petitioners are unable to claim tax benefit as they would not legally qualify as 'spouses' as they belong to the same petition challenges the constitutional validity of the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, insofar as it discriminates against same-sex couples in taxing gifts received from one partner to petitioners have prayed before the court, (1) to declare the reference to the term 'spouse' as unconstitutional in so far as it excludes same-sex couples in the same circumstances; (2) to declare that the particular proviso is applicable to same-sex couples in a long, stable relationship; (3) restrain tax authorities from carrying out reassessment and imposing penalties relating to transactions between the petitioners. It may be pointed out that the petitioners neither seek recognition nor presumption of outcome of the proceedings, according to legal circles, would be closely followed by the LGBTQIA+ community as it could have a bearing on investments, property ownerships, and some legal victories, community members, often voicing the discriminations they encounter, believe they still have a long way to go in preserving their dignity and freedom. While in 2018, the apex court had decriminalised same-sex relationship by scrapping a colonial era law, in 2023, a five-member Supreme Court bench declined to recognise LGBTQIA+ persons' right to marry under the Special Marriage Act, K Singh, managing partner of law firm Capstone Legal said For such a prayer to be granted, an expansive reading of the word 'spouse' is required to be considered by the Court.'However, the biggest bottleneck would be the fact that no legal provision in India recognises the rights of same sex couples,' said Singh.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Pre-Independence Documents Have More Value Than 'Affinity Test' In Deciding Scheduled Tribe Status: SC
The court declared the appellant belonged to the Koli Mahadev Tribe and directed the scrutiny committee to issue caste validity certificate to him within six weeks The Supreme Court, on August 12, allowed an appeal seeking recognition of Scheduled Tribe status, holding that the affinity test is not a litmus test to determine caste or tribe claims and should not be treated as an essential step in every case. The court stressed that when available, credible pre-Independence documents must be given greater probative value. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling while setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld an order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of appellant Yogesh Madhav Makalwad. The court directed the committee to issue a Caste Validity Certificate within six weeks, holding that the appellant belonged to the Koli Mahadev Tribe. The top court observed that with the passage of time, migration and modernisation have integrated many tribal populations into the mainstream, and the inability to recall anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, marriage or funeral practices should not automatically result in rejection of a claim. The judgment cited Anand v Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims (2012), which established that pre-Independence records carry a higher degree of probative value when declaring caste status than post-Independence documents. In Anand, it was also held that the affinity test is not conclusive for establishing a link with a Scheduled Tribe, and failure to match specific anthropological features should not be the sole ground to reject a claim. In the present matter, the State had alleged interpolation in the 1943 school record of the appellant's grandfather. The bench considered the handwriting expert's report inconclusive and, after examining the document with a magnifying glass, found the words 'Koli Mahadev" written in the same ink and handwriting as the rest of the entry, ruling out tampering. The court also relied on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v State of Maharashtra (2023), where a three-judge bench reiterated that the affinity test cannot be determinative either way. That judgment clarified that when conducted by a vigilance cell, the test's results must be weighed along with other material of probative value in deciding caste validity claims. Applying these principles, the court held that the Scrutiny Committee's invalidation of the appellant's caste claim, and the Bombay High Court's July 23, 2024, order upholding it, could not be sustained. The facts showed that in 1943, the appellant's grandfather was admitted to Zilla Parishad Primary School, Narangal, Degloor Taluka, Nanded District, with his caste recorded as Koli Mahadev. In 1975 and 1979, the appellant's uncle, Vyankat Jalba Makalwad, and father, Madhav Jalba Makalwad, were admitted to Zilla Parishad Primary School, Kabirwadi, Degloor Taluka, with their caste recorded as Koli Mahadev. In 2005, the appellant's admission record at Janta Vidya Mandir Primary School, Murud Taluka, Latur District, also reflected Koli Mahadev as his caste. Census data from 2001 indicated that the appellant's village had a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population exceeding 40 per cent. In 2019, after securing 334 out of 720 marks in the NEET UG examination and becoming eligible for medical admission, the appellant applied for validation of his caste certificate. The Scrutiny Committee, however, rejected his claim and that of his father, disbelieving multiple documents. On June 24, 2019, it passed an order confiscating the caste certificate. The appellant challenged the order in the High Court, but the court upheld the committee's decision. In the appeal before the Supreme Court, it was argued that the committee had failed to accord due evidentiary weight to the pre-Independence record and had erred in relying heavily on the affinity test. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the earlier findings were based on presumptions, without adequately considering binding precedents on the probative value of old records. The court declared the committee's order and the High Court's decision unsustainable in law and ordered the issuance of the Caste Validity Certificate. view comments First Published: August 14, 2025, 22:50 IST News india Pre-Independence Documents Have More Value Than 'Affinity Test' In Deciding Scheduled Tribe Status: SC 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.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Same-sex couple moves court against Income Tax Act
'The love that dare not speak its name' spoke up against an 'uneven' tax code on Thursday morning at Room number 6 of the Bombay High Court, a theatre of many epic legal battles. A same-sex couple, in a relationship for years, has moved the court, challenging the law that discriminates against them by taxing the gifts received by one partner from another. Independence Day 2025 Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji gave India its own currency Swadeshi 2.0: India is no longer just a market, it's a maker Under the Income Tax Act, no such tax on gifts is levied for a heterosexual couple, even if the partners are not formally married but are presumed to be in a marriage. They are not taxed simply because they have the possibility of getting married. According to the petitioners, such unequal economic treatment to same-sex couples, who may be in a long, stable relationship, would amount to a denial of the equal protection of the law on the basis of sex --- a form of discrimination prohibited by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like They Were So Beautiful Before; Now Look At Them; Number 10 Will Shock You Reportingly Undo Admitting the petition, the bench comprising Justice and Firdoush Pooniwalla said the court would send a notice to the Attorney General as it raises a constitutional question. The petitioners, Payio Ashiho, a homemaker, and his partner Vivek Divan, a lawyer who had practised at the High Court and worked at the UN headquarters, were represented by Advocate Dr Dhruv Janssen-Sanghavi. Live Events Introduced to curb tax evasion, Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act taxes any money, property, or other assets received without adequate consideration if their value exceeds Rs 50,000. Such receipts or gifts are categorised as 'income from other sources'. However, as per the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x), such gifts are not treated as 'income from other sources' and therefore not taxed, when received from 'relatives', which also includes 'spouses' (a term that the statute does not separately explain). Unlike the partners in a heterosexual couple, the petitioners are unable to claim tax benefit as they would not legally qualify as 'spouses' as they belong to the same sex. This petition challenges the constitutional validity of the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, insofar as it discriminates against same-sex couples in taxing gifts received from one partner to another. The petitioners have prayed before the court, (1) to declare the reference to the term 'spouse' as unconstitutional in so far as it excludes same-sex couples in the same circumstances; (2) to declare that the particular proviso is applicable to same-sex couples in a long, stable relationship; (3) restrain tax authorities from carrying out reassessment and imposing penalties relating to transactions between the petitioners. It may be pointed out that the petitioners neither seek recognition nor presumption of marriage. The outcome of the proceedings, according to legal circles, would be closely followed by the LGBTQIA+ community as it could have a bearing on investments, property ownerships, and inheritance. Despite some legal victories, community members, often voicing the discriminations they encounter, believe they still have a long way to go in preserving their dignity and freedom. While in 2018, the apex court had decriminalised same-sex relationship by scrapping a colonial era law, in 2023, a five-member Supreme Court bench declined to recognise LGBTQIA+ persons' right to marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Ashish K Singh, managing partner of law firm Capstone Legal said For such a prayer to be granted, an expansive reading of the word 'spouse' is required to be considered by the Court. 'However, the biggest bottleneck would be the fact that no legal provision in India recognises the rights of same sex couples,' said Singh.
