17 hours ago
Dr. Payal Tadvi suicide: HC slams Maha govt over SPP removal, seeks to know if he wishes to return
The Bombay High Court on Monday questioned the Maharashtra government over the manner in which erstwhile Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Pradip Gharat was removed from the trial in the case related suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi in 2019, allegedly due to harassment by her seniors.
The court asked the government lawyer to check with Gharat and inform if he was willing to come back to represent the state as SPP in the case.
A bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad was hearing plea by Abeda Tadvi, mother of late Payal, who had challenged the March 7, 2025 notification issued by state law and judiciary department that removed Gharat as SPP with immediate effect and appointed another lawyer Mahesh Mule.
The mother alleged that the decision was 'arbitrary and illegal' and will lead to delay in trial and risk of losing crucial evidence' and violative of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Payal's three seniors at TN Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital Dr Bhakti Mehare, Dr Ankita Khandelwal and Dr Hema Ahuja are named as accused in the case.
Gharat in February had filed an application before sessions court to add the then head of gynaecology department at the Hospital Dr Yi Ching Ling as accused for overlooking the harassment and ragging complaint by Tadvi. The trial court on February 28 ordered Ling's addition as an accused in abetment of suicide case.
'It is very easy to say that the public has great trust in the judiciary. These are testing times These are examples where it is tested. Now the impression of the petitioner is, for some reason, because Mr. Gharat acted strictly, he was removed. When order comes in your favour, Gharat is back and when order is adverse, Gharat is removed,' Justice Ghuge orally remarked.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) SV Gavand for the government submitted that the state government was well within its right and domain to take a decision of removal and claimed that Gharat's appointment too was made by state on its own and not at the mother's instance.
However, advocate Lara Jesai for the petitioner mother denied the same and submitted that she too had filed an application for his appointment.
The bench expressed displeasure over the justification given by the government to remove Gharat as SPP and said that the same was 'not in a good taste'.
The judges questioned the government lawyer, 'Gharat is a seasoned prosecutor. Such a senior advocate who has worked so hard for the state, got you (state government) so many convictions… He put so much hard work in that journalist's (J Dey murder) case. That time he was nice… Entire trial was conducted by him and you got a conviction for nine accused. Who is this officer who writes like this? Therefore, the petitioner wants us to scrutinise the decision (to remove Gharat as SPP) because her faith in the law is shaken.'
'We know it is in your domain but should be done judiciously,' the HC remarked.
'Show him what is written (justification for removal) and make an impression whether he would want to come back,' it told APP Gavand.
The court also sought to know who had made an application for Gharat's removal as SPP in January, and along with the file of such correspondence and posted further hearing to August 13.
