Latest news with #RajeshSPatil
India Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Exposing victim's identity: Bombay High Court on live-streaming of sensitive cases
A bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday raised concerns over the live-streaming of court proceedings involving sensitive matters. The judges stated that they would adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court on the bench, comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil, observed during proceedings that most cases before them involved crimes against 20 to 25 percent of the cases fall under the UAPA or other such laws. Nearly 70 percent are related to crimes against women,' Justice Gadkari noted. The judges highlighted that under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, disclosing the identity of victims in certain offences is punishable. Similar restrictions exist under special statutes such as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, where revealing the identity of a victim is a criminal observations came when the court was about to hear a case seeking the quashing of an FIR by mutual consent. A man and a woman were present for the hearing, and the live-streaming feature was active. The bench remarked that through live-streaming, anyone could access the proceedings, potentially exposing the victim's judges then asked the Additional Public Prosecutors present in court to suggest ways to address the response, Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Patil referred to the Bombay High Court's rules on the live-streaming and recording of court proceedings. These rules aim to promote transparency, inclusivity, and greater access to justice. To support these goals, the court has developed infrastructure and a legal framework enabling under Article 225 and Article 227 of the Constitution, or relevant statutes where applicable, these rules apply to the Bombay High Court and to courts and tribunals under its supervisory the rules explicitly exclude certain categories from live-streaming. These include matrimonial cases, child custody and adoption matters, transfer petitions arising from them, cases involving sexual offences including rape under Section 376 of the IPC, gender-based violence against women, and proceedings under the POCSO and JJ bench reviewed the rules but has yet to issue a formal directive on the live-streaming facility was inaugurated last month in Mumbai by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai. Currently, proceedings from 12 benches at the principal seat of the Bombay High Court, along with three courts each from the Aurangabad and Nagpur benches, and two courts in Goa, are being live-streamed.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Mumbai#Supreme Court
Indian Express
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC rejects Pune teacher's plea against FIR for posts against PM, country
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by a 46-year-old teacher from Pune, seeking quashing of FIR for allegedly posting objectionable messages on a WhatsApp group against the Prime Minister and the country after the armed forces carried out 'Operation Sindoor' in May this year. The court held that contents of FIR and material on record 'constitute the ingredients of the alleged offences' and the plea with 'no merit' deserved to be dismissed. In doing so, the Bombay HC said it was in 'agreement with the view' taken in the July 2 order of Allahabad HC that rejected bail plea of a man booked for objectionable posts against PM and armed forces. The Bombay HC reiterated, 'it has become a fashion among certain groups of people to misuse social media in the garb of freedom of speech and expression by making baseless allegations against high dignitaries, posting such material that creates hatred and disharmony among the people.' It added, 'such action shows disrespect not only against the Prime Minister of the country but also against the Indian military and its officers.' A division bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil on Tuesday passed a verdict on plea by a 46-year-old woman from Pune, seeking quashing of an FIR lodged by Kalepadal police station in Pune on May 15. She was booked for offences punishable under sections 152 (acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race etc), 197 (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The FIR alleged that the petitioner and complainant reside in the same housing society and were members of a women-only WhatsApp group of nearly 380 members. On May 7, the members praised the Indian armed forces for conducting Operation Sindoor, while the petitioner allegedly claimed that the group should not be used as a National News Channel. Another member replied it was the time to show solidarity towards the nation, to which the petitioner allegedly reacted with a laughing emoji, leading to certain exchanges of messages. Subsequently, as per FIR, she posted messages against PM and the country, based on which FIR was lodged. Advocate Harshad Sathe said his client was not in a sound condition during exchange of messages and she deleted the same as soon as she realised reactions of other members and had apologised to the complainant. Sathe argued that the 'petitioner is already at a loss' being expelled from the school and an FIR without merit should be quashed and set aside. The HC observed that the petitioner was a 'well educated' person and though she tendered her apology to the complainant, 'innumerable damage has already been caused' by her already circulated messages. It also referred to 'unrest in local areas' after her messages, resulting in people approaching the local police station in groups. The court said that it was expected of a 'prudent person,' and 'well educated' petitioner teacher to consider 'pros and cons' before posting such messages and her defence that she had realised the messages being 'controversial' and were posting them due to 'deranged mental condition will not be helpful.' The court said her 'intention becomes an essential ingredient to be judged with the kind of language she has used for India, more particularly when the whole country was feeling proud of our army' and 'she could have probably avoided reacting with a laughing emoji.' The HC added the woman did not respond to allegations made in notice sent by police and as chargesheet is yet to be filed in the case, FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.
India Today
05-06-2025
- India Today
Bombay High Court calls 498A FIR filed by woman vague, quashes harrasment case
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings filed by a woman against her in-laws that she was being harassed by them over no proper arrangements being made at the time of her marriage. Dismissing the case, the bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Rajesh S Patil said that 'As such, prima facie, such allegations after a period of 12 years of marriage can't be accepted.'advertisementThe bench was hearing a plea to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings against a mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of a woman. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Nikhil R Tekade submitted that as per the first information report and chargesheet there are no specific allegations leveled against them and the allegations which have been raised are vague and general in bench went through the chargesheet and the FIR and noted that the marriage of the woman and her husband had been solemnised on December 10, 2010. 'According to the own averment of the woman, she was not subjected to any harassment on the count of dowry or any other issues till the year 2021. As such, for 11 years, she has cohabited with her husband and family members without any grievance,' observed the is further pertinent to note that the woman, after the period of 12 years, lodged police complaint against the in laws mainly on the allegation that at the time of her marriage proper arrangement was not made. As such, prima facie, such allegations after a period of 12 of marriage, can't be accepted,' said the bench. The bench also stated that the allegations made by the woman is vague and omnibus in nature. 'Therefore, according to us, prima facie the prerequisites of Section 498-A of IPC are not satisfied in the present matter,' said the court while quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings against the family."The allegations made against the applicants seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance,' the bench added. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code deals with cruelty against married women by their husbands or relatives. It criminalizes actions that cause physical or mental harm, harassment, or demands for Watch
