2 days ago
HC questions state over removal of prosecutor in Payal Tadvi case, seeks affidavit
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday pulled up the Maharashtra government for abruptly removing special public prosecutor (SPP) Pradip Gharat from the case involving the abetment of suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi, without citing any reasons in its official order. The court directed the state to file an affidavit clarifying its stand. HC questions state over removal of prosecutor in Payal Tadvi case, seeks affidavit
A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice MM Sathaye was hearing a petition filed by Abeda Tadvi, mother of the deceased doctor, challenging the state's March 7 notification removing Gharat from the high-profile case.
Dr Payal Tadvi, a 26-year-old postgraduate medical student who belonged to the oppressed Tadvi Bhil caste--an Adivasi Muslim community, died by suicide on May 22, 2019, allegedly due to caste-based harassment by three senior colleagues — Dr Hema Ahuja, Dr Bhakti Meher and Dr Ankita Khandelwal — at the Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital. The three were arrested under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, but are currently out on bail. The trial has not yet commenced.
In November 2024, while serving as SPP, Gharat moved an application seeking to implead Dr Yi Ching Ling Chung Chiang — then head of the obstetrics and gynaecology department — as a co-accused, for allegedly failing to act on repeated complaints of harassment made by Payal and her family. The application, based on the report of the college's anti-ragging committee and an early complaint by the family, was allowed by a special court on February 28, 2025.
Just a week later, the state removed Gharat from the case, replacing him with advocate Mahesh Manohar Mule — a decision that was neither explained in the notification nor communicated with the victim's family, prompting Payal's mother to move the High Court.
During Thursday's hearing, the bench questioned the rationale behind the government's move. 'The complainant has confidence in this special public prosecutor. Why disturb the situation?' the court asked.
Responding on behalf of the state, additional public prosecutor Shreekant Gavand said Gharat had allegedly been acting independently without consulting the investigating officer or keeping them informed of court proceedings. 'He took the decision of impleading the new accused on his own,' Gavand said.
He cited Rule 4(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which permits the state to denotify a special public prosecutor if he fails to conduct the case with due care — provided reasons are recorded in the denotification order.
But the bench noted that no such reasons were mentioned in the official order removing Gharat. 'You have simpliciter withdrawn him. The law requires you to supply reasons. Now, reasons cannot be assigned after the decision is taken,' the court observed.
The state has now been asked to file an affidavit responding to the petition, explaining its decision to replace Gharat.
