Latest news with #NeelaKGokhale
Indian Express
31-07-2025
- Health
- Indian Express
Bombay High Court pulls up police for compelling doctors to reveal identity of minor girls seeking pregnancy termination
The Bombay High Court on Monday expressed displeasure with the Maharashtra Police for 'harassment' of doctors for compelling them to reveal the names and identity of the minor girls who desire to terminate their pregnancy, despite the Supreme Court directive that the same should not be insisted upon. A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale passed an order on city-based gynecologist seeking direction that he was free to undertake medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) of a co-petitioner minor girl without disclosing her name and identity to the police. The petitioner through advocate Meenaz Kakalia referred to the Supreme Court judgment of 2022 which 'recognized the medical practitioner's fear of prosecution under POCSO, thereby hindering access to safe and legal abortion.' The court noted that petitioner minor girl had consensual relationship with a boy known to her and became pregnant consequent to said relations and she and her parents are desirous of terminating her 13-week pregnancy. 'Hence, well within the restriction on the length of pregnancy, termination of which is permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP), 1971 subject to the conditions laid down therein. Considering the future of the minor, it is natural that she and her parents are unwilling to reveal her identity,' the HC noted. Kakalia also argued that earlier, a coordinate bench of HC had in May last year allowed the gynaecologist to undertake MTP of another minor girl without disclosing her name and identity based on SC decision. The HC permitted the doctor to undertake MTP of the minor girl 'without being compelled to disclose her name and identity.' The court said that the forensic evidence of the foetus be collected and stored by the doctor only if the minor girl and her parents consent to the same, which transmitted to the Police Officer concerned in case any criminal prosecution is launched in future. 'We are quite surprised that despite the clear finding of the Supreme Court as well as of this court, repeatedly holding that in the facts of such cases, the identity of the minor girl need not be insisted upon to be revealed, the doctors concerned are compelled to approach this court for such permissions as the police insist upon the doctors to reveal the name and identity of the minor victims. 'This is nothing but harassment of the doctors as well as the minor victims. We thus, deem it appropriate that a copy of the Supreme Court's decision as aforesaid as well as the orders passed by this court be circulated to all the police stations in Maharashtra for their information and for necessary action,' the HC noted and disposed of the plea.
Indian Express
17-07-2025
- Indian Express
‘No fundamental right to adopt US citizen': Bombay High Court dismisses couple's plea to adopt relative's son
The Bombay High Court Wednesday dismissed a plea by a Pune-based couple that challenged the decision of the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) to deny their request to adopt a six-year-old son who is a United States citizen. His biological parents are related to the petitioner couple. The court said it was 'clear that there was no provision in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (JJ Act), 2015 nor the Adoption Regulations providing for adoption of a child of foreign citizenship even between relative, unless the 'child is in need of care and protection' or a 'child is in conflict with law (CCL)''. A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale in its verdict noted that the plea 'brings to the attention of the Court an unprecedented situation relating to the applicability of the JJ Act and the Adoption Regulations framed under the said Act, to the adoption of a child being a citizen of the USA by relatives of the child's biological parents.' Advocates Shirin Merchant and Stuti Oswal, for the petitioners, sought direction from the CARA to register them as prospective adoptive parents and issue a pre-approval letter to facilitate the adoption of the US national boy, who is the son of the petitioner woman's sister. The petitioner couple stated that as they were unable to bear a child, they desired to adopt the boy. He was born in the US in 2019 and holds a US passport. The petitioner couple, with the intention of adopting him, brought the boy to India when he was a few months old. The CARA rejected their request for adoption on the grounds that the regulations do not permit the facilitation of the adoption of an American citizen. The couple had also approached the Pune district court seeking adoption, which was pending due to the CARA's refusal to approve the adoption. Advocate Merchant claimed before the high court that US authorities were likely to refuse renewal of the boy's passport without a valid adoption order, and his stay in India may become illegal. The plea added that the child is attending school in India and is required to travel to the US every year to renew his visa, failing which he may become an illegal migrant in India; therefore, considering his 'stability, identity and future prospects', the CARA should be directed to give clearance for adoption. The petitioners sought the relaxation of guidelines and the granting of an exception to regulations by the CARA. Moreover, the biological parents of the child, through advocate Yugandhara Khanwilkar, claimed that the present adoption would fall under the ambit of in-country adoption and not inter-country adoption as the petitioners and their biological parents are Indian citizens. Justice Gokhale observed that such private and relative intercountry adoptions were 'incompatible' with the International Hague Convention on Adoption of Children, of which India is a signatory. The high court said such adoptions are not considered authorised adoptions. There is no fundamental right of the petitioners to adopt an American child who does not fall within the applicability of the JJ Act and the regulations, even if he is born to Indian parents, the court noted. 'Neither is there any violation of any fundamental right of the child of American nationality to be adopted by an Indian citizen,' the high court recorded. It added that while the petitioners' difficulty can easily be resolved based on the CARA's suggestion that the child can apply for Indian citizenship and then follow the procedure under the JJ Act, or the petitioners can process the adoption in the US as per the laws applicable in that country. However, the court noted that the petitioners were not inclined to accept the suggestion, and it was inclined to dismiss the petition.
Indian Express
23-06-2025
- Health
- Indian Express
Bombay HC allows 31-yr-old woman to terminate her 25-week pregnancy
The Bombay High Court has permitted a 31-year-old woman to terminate her 25-week pregnancy from a consensual relationship after her partner refused her support. The court said she could get the procedure done at a hospital of her choice. Observing that the petitioner was 'left in lurch by her own circumstances as well as refusal of her partner to offer support or assistance to her in any manner, despite being an active participant in bringing about the present situation', the court said the petitioner was 'naturally apprehensive about social stigma and facing her own parents, who may not be supportive in the circumstances'. The HC also asked her ex-partner to give Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner for her medical expenses in addition to legal expenses and accompany her to the hospital, if she so desired and remain with her during the procedure. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale on June 19 passed an order on the plea by the woman unwilling to continue with the pregnancy. The petitioner woman had submitted that she was in a consensual relationship with her partner and the pregnancy occurred due to failure of a contraceptive device. She also submitted that she was no longer in the said relationship. On June 13, the HC had directed the medical board of state-run JJ Hospital to examine the petitioner. The expert who conducted her psychiatric evaluation found that the petitioner had a history of sadness and stress due to financial constraints and inter-personal conflicts along with a history of alcohol consumption and smoking. The Board unanimously found her fit to undergo the procedure under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. The petitioner, through advocate Nikita Raje, sought termination of her pregnancy and argued that she has no financial or emotional support to carry the pregnancy to its full term. The continuation of the same would hamper her mental health due to anguish of her situation, Raje added. The petitioner also informed the court that she had quit her job a few months ago and today, instead of looking for a new job, she was required to run from pillar to post to consult doctors to terminate her pregnancy. The HC noted that as per the report, the petitioner has a history of illness and her parents/family was not aware of the pregnancy. As per petitioner, if her parents learn about the same, they would not accept it, 'leaving her in a complete lurch to fend for herself'. After interacting with the petitioner in the chamber, the judges noted that she appeared to be 'extremely disturbed, having to face these challenges'. The bench noted that petitioner had made 'conscious decision to terminate pregnancy' and the judges ascertained that she made the 'choice of her own free will'. The HC considered past Supreme Court verdicts, petitioner's right to reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy, findings of the medical board related to her psychological condition. 'We are satisfied that continuance of the pregnancy shall adversely affect the already disturbed psychological condition of the petitioner. Hence, in the peculiar facts of this case, we permit the petitioner to medically terminate the pregnancy,' the court held and allowed the woman's plea.
United News of India
03-06-2025
- General
- United News of India
HC allows slaughter of animals and annual Urs of shrine in Maharashtra
LAW HC- URS Mumbai, June 3 (UNI) The Bombay High Court on Tuesday allowed animal slaughter and celebration of annual Urs (festival that commemorates the death anniversary of a saint, typically held at their dargah ,shrine or tomb) of the shrine at Vishalgad Fort in Kolhapur, saying certain conditions should be strictly complied with during the slaughter of animals on the occasion of Bakr Id. A vacation bench of Justices Neela K Gokhale and Firdosh P Pooniwalla passed an order during the hearing of an interim application by Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan Dargah Trust, seeking permission for slaughtering animals on the specific dates. While permitting animal slaughter for Bakri Eid on June 7 and the four-day Urs from June 8 to 12 at the dargah bench clarified that the order shall apply to the petitioners as well as the dargah devotees who come there to sacrifice animals on the said days. The trust had filed an interim application in its writ plea challenging various communications issued by the director of archaeology and museums, the superintendent of police, Kolhapur, and the chief executive officer of the Kolhapur Zilla Parishad seeking a ban on slaughtering of animals and birds at Vishalgad in Shahuwadi Taluka. The authorities had claimed that the slaughtering of animals was taking place at a protected monument, and as per Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1962, there was a prohibition to cook and consume food in the fort premises. However, the petitioner trust, had argued that the dargah within the fort precincts was a historical monument constructed in the 11th century and is visited and revered by both Hindus and Muslims. The trust claimed that while the animal sacrifice at the dargah was an 'integral custom', the actual sacrifice does not take place in a public place but behind closed doors on private land nearly 1.4 km away from the fort. The lawyers argued that the offerings are served to pilgrims and others at the dargah and have been a source of food to many poor people residing in the surrounding villages of the fort. UNI AAA PRS
Indian Express
03-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Bombay HC permits animal slaughter for Bakri Eid and Urs at dargah at Vishalgad fort
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday allowed animal slaughter for Eid al-Adha (commonly known as Bakri Eid) and Urs at the dargah at Vishalgad Fort in Kolhapur, saying certain conditions should be strictly complied with. The court permitted animal slaughter for Bakri Eid on June 7 and the four-day Urs from June 8 to 12 at the dargah at Vishalgad fort and clarified that the order shall apply to the petitioners as well as the dargah devotees who come there to sacrifice animals on the said days. A vacation bench of Justices Neela K Gokhale and Firdosh P Pooniwalla was hearing an interim application by Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan Dargah Trust, seeking permission for slaughtering animals on the said dates. The trust had filed an interim application in its writ plea challenging various communications issued by the director of archaeology and museums, the superintendent of police, Kolhapur, and the chief executive officer of the Kolhapur Zilla Parishad seeking a ban on slaughtering of animals and birds at Vishalgad in Shahuwadi Taluka. The authorities had claimed that the slaughtering of animals was taking place at a protected monument, and as per Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1962, there was a prohibition to cook and consume food in the fort premises. However, the petitioner trust, through advocates Satish B Talekar and Madhavi Ayyapan, had argued that the dargah within the fort precincts was a historical monument constructed in the 11th century and is visited and revered by both Hindus and Muslims. The trust claimed that while the animal sacrifice at the dargah was an 'integral custom', the actual sacrifice does not take place in a public place but behind closed doors on private land nearly 1.4 km away from the fort. The lawyers argued that the offerings are served to pilgrims and others at the dargah and have been a source of food to many poor people residing in the surrounding villages of the fort. The Justice Gokhale-led vacation bench referred to the June 14, 2024, order of a bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Pooniwalla that allowed animal slaughter during Bakri Eid and Urs at the said dargah. 'Considering the fact that the coordinate bench of this court in order dated June 14, 2024 has already dealt with the issue and had permitted the prayer, the same shall continue for the festival of Bakri Eid, which is on June 7 and the Urs for four days from June 8 to 12. Needless to state, the same conditions, which have been imposed in the June 14, 2024 order, shall apply to the petitioners in the present interim application and also to devotees of Dargah who come to sacrifice animals during Bakri Eid and Urs. The conditions imposed in June 14, 2024 order shall be strictly complied with,' the vacation bench noted in the order and disposed of the trust's application. The conditions include that the killing of animals or birds shall only take place in the closed premises, a private land owned by one Mubarak Usman Mujawar, and the killing of animals should not be done in an open place or a public place.
