‘Need of the hour': Bombay HC to get bench in Kolhapur from Aug 18
The gazette notification issued by CJ Alok Aradhe, with approval from Governor of Maharashtra, was issued over a month after Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai had supported the demand to set up a bench of the Bombay HC in Kolhapur.
'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No. 37 of 1956), and all other powers enabling me in this behalf, I Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, with the approval of the Governor of Maharashtra, appoint Kolhapur as a place at which judges and division courts of the High Court may also sit, with effect from 18th August 2025,' the gazette notification issued by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe of Bombay HC reads.
On June 26, while addressing lawyers' association of the Bombay HC at the Aurangabad bench, CJI Gavai had stated that justice should be made available to citizens 'in every corner'.
Last year, he had said that the bench at Kolhapur was the 'need of the hour.'
Besides the principal seat at Mumbai, the Bombay HC presently has benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad (in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar city) and Goa (at Panaji).
On September 28 last year, Justice Gavai, who was the senior judge of the Supreme Court, had said the constitution of Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court is a 'need of the hour.'
In support of his demand, Justice Gavai had said that it will offer far-flung residents from the nearby districts an effective access to justice and emphasised that additional benches do not bring down the stature of the HC.
The lawyers have been demanding a bench of the high court in Kolhapur for several years, claiming that a large number of cases pending at HC are from the same region.
The lawyers had claimed that citizens from six districts in the Kolhapur region are compelled to travel 400-500 km to approach the principal seat of HC in Mumbai. The six districts included Satara, Sangli, Sindhudurg, Ratnagiri, Solapur, and Kolhapur.
Responding to the demand raised by Justice Gavai, the then Deputy Chief Minister (present CM) and law minister Devendra Fadnavis had in September last year said that the state government had already passed a resolution for a Kolhapur bench and 'the ball was in Bombay HC administration's court' to decide on the same.
Earlier, in March 2022, at an all-party meeting, political leaders of the state had supported the demand for setting up a circuit bench (temporary courts functioning for a few months every year) at Kolhapur. They had cited a study that said it would take 45 per cent burden off the court.
The Bombay HC is presently functioning with 66 judges, 50 permanent judges, and 16 additional judges. However, the sanctioned strength of the court, which is the second largest in the country after the Allahabad High Court, is 94.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
13 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Madurai Bench of Madras HC tells government to decentralise access to court case monitoring system
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the home secretary, government of Tamil Nadu to decentralise access to the Court Case Monitoring System (CCMS) for effective tracking of cases involving government entities. Justice B Pugalendhi gave the direction recently following an incident in which two sub inspectors of police inadvertently gave wrong information to the court in a financial fraud case in Karur. The judge observed that if the investigation officer had himself provided the information to the government advocate virtually, such a mistake could have been avoided. Upon hearing that digital platform CCMS has been introduced by the government to monitor and coordinate the handling of all categories of court cases involving the government, the judge suggested the HC registry to assign unique department codes or identifiers to cases, corresponding to the names of the government departments, so that when officials log into the portal, only cases relating to their departments are visible to them. When it was told that CCMS is currently available only in the secretariat, the judge directed the home secretary to decentralise the CCMS platform at all levels, so that real-time case data can be accessed by all officials, without the need for their physical appearance in courts. The matter was posted on August 29.
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Aurangabad bench of HC refers caste certificate recall powers to larger bench
MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday asked a larger bench to decide whether caste scrutiny committees in Maharashtra can cancel their own orders if a caste validity certificate is found to have been obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Aurangabad bench of HC refers caste certificate recall powers to larger bench The reference was made by justices Manish Pitale and YG Khobragade while hearing petitions by four residents of Jamb village in Nanded district — Santosh Anil Kolhe, Sham Anil Kolhe, Sharad Arunrao Kolhe and Balaji Arunrao Kolhe. They had challenged a May 15, 2025 order of the Kinwat-based Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar headquarters) cancelling their caste validity certificates for alleged fraud and concealment of information. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Pratap V. Jadhavar argued that the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 gives scrutiny committees no legal power to review or recall their own decisions. He cited earlier high court rulings — Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje and Bharat Nagu Garud — which held that once a validity certificate is issued, the committee becomes functus officio (a legal term meaning its job in that matter is finished) and only the High Court can overturn it under Article 226 of the Constitution. Countering this, additional government pleaders SP Sonpawale and Saie S Joshi said that certificates obtained by fraud cannot be allowed to stand, even if the 2000 Act is silent on recall powers. They relied on the Rajeshwar Baburao Bone case, in which the High Court and Supreme Court upheld cancellation of a fraudulently obtained caste certificate, stressing that fraud vitiates all legal acts. The bench noted that different benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue. While unchecked recall powers could unsettle vested rights, the judges said, the inability to correct fraudulent outcomes would undermine the caste verification process. They observed that scrutiny committees, being quasi-judicial bodies with some powers of a civil court, are often better placed than writ courts to assess factual fraud in caste claims. 'It cannot be countenanced,' the court remarked, 'that validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications or suppression of material facts cannot be reopened when such fraud is noticed subsequently.' Citing the need for an authoritative ruling, the bench framed five questions for the larger bench, including: Whether scrutiny committees under the 2000 Act have the power to recall orders obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. If so, what limits and safeguards should apply to prevent misuse. Whether such safeguards could include requiring prior leave of the High Court. And whether earlier rulings in Umbarje and Garud should be revisited on this point. The matter will now go to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign it to a larger bench.
Indian Express
16 hours ago
- Indian Express
Delhi HC pulls up police for separating interfaith couple: ‘If couple wants marriage, will protect them' rules judge
The Delhi High Court on Friday came to the rescue of an interfaith couple, ordering for their continued protection and stay at a government safe house, while pulling up the police for allegedly separating the couple instead of providing them protection. The court also sought that the police identify the personnel responsible for the same. A 26-year old Muslim man, in a relationship with a 25-year old Hindu woman since 2018, had moved HC last month seeking its urgent directions to the Delhi Police to provide the couple necessary protection and a safe house. The request was made after the couple expressed their intent to marry, which was met with familial opposition and threats. According to advocate Utkarsh Singh, representing the man, instead of being provided with the safety, the couple was 'forcibly separated', with the woman 'medically examined, and later detained at a woman's shelter July 24, despite her repeated pleas to be with her partner. The police, in a status report filed before HC on August 6, asserted 'there was no element of coercion, unlawful separation, or procedural irregularity at any stage', with all actions 'taken purely from a welfare and constitutional standpoint,' with due regard to the woman's 'safety and autonomy'. The police's submission, however, did not convince the court. The woman, who virtually interacted with Justice Sanjeev Narula on Friday, said that she was taken away forcibly by the police and separated from her partner. She asserted that when the couple had initially sought protection, the police had said 'there is no such thing as a safe cell', and coerced her into undergoing a medical examination. 'I went for a medical examination and without telling me or without my consent, I was taken to a shelter home,' she told Justice Narula, adding that all her personal belongings were taken away, including her phone. Orally remarking that 'police has to sensitise its officers' and that they are 'forcibly separating' consenting adult partners, Justice Narula expressed disapproval with the police's status report. 'Has he (the police personnel who filed the status report) even interacted with the (woman) to understand what has happened? I'm not going to allow this at all.' The HC also refused to allow the woman's father – who is opposed to the relationship – to interfere, noting that he has 'no role' given that his daughter is an adult and has consented to the relationship. The father's counsel impressed before the court that 'social reality has to be taken into consideration', with 'in Indian society, parents have to be consulted' for marriage. To this, the court orally responded, 'What law requires an adult to ask father for marrying someone of different faith?… You are insisting on something that I cannot appreciate… Constitutional right guarantees she can marry of her choice and I am going to honour that… If the couple wants to get married, I am going to protect them.' After sustained interaction with the woman, Justice Narula went on to assure her orally, 'If you are firm about your decision, we will support you. I am supporting your choice, I will support your decision.' 'As far as the police are concerned, they will support you,' the HC said, while recording in its order that the woman's 'intention to marry is informed and consistent based on her relationship with him (her partner) over the past seven years'.
