Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 15 - April 21, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 200 - 220]

Sumit Suresh More v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 200

Arun Gulab Gawli v. State of Maharashtra 201

Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 202

Dipak P. Mali v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 203

Durgadas s/o. Sunil Saindane v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 204

Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Ajit Sippy & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 205

Ram Kotumal Issrani v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 206

Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 207

Commissioner of Income Tax Central v. Income Tax Settlement Commission 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 208

Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Limited v. Mr. Bean Trampoline Park / Mr. Been Trampoline Park 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 209

M/s. Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Assist. Commissioner of State Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 210

Khanjan Jagadishkumar Thakkar v. Waahiid Ali Khan & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 211

Ceat Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 212

Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 213

Nijam Asgar Hashmi v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 214

Sheela Chowgule v. Vijay V. Chowgule 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 215

Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216

ABC v. XYZ 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 217

Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 218

NP Enterprises v. General Manager, Western Railway 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 219

Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 220

Reports/Judgments

Very Grave Offence, No Bail Despite Delay In Trial: Bombay High Court To Man Who Allegedly Murdered Neighbour To Fake Own Death For Insurance Money

Case Title: Sumit Suresh More v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 200

The Bombay High Court denied bail to a man who allegedly staged his own death by murdering his neighbour, in order to claim the benefit of his life insurance worth Rs. 1.5 Crores.

Justice Madhav J Jamdar found the alleged offence grave enough to deny bail despite a delay in the trial.

“The Applicant is incarcerated since about 4 years and 2 months and therefore Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel for the Applicant is correct in contending that there is a delay in conducting the trial. However, as noted herein above, the offence is very grave and serious. It is a pre-planned crime. To avail the benefit of life insurance policy of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, an innocent person was killed to portray that the Accused No.1 had met with an accident and that in the said accident, the car in which Accused No.1 was travelling, caught fire and the said car as well as Accused No.1 got burnt...Accordingly, the Bail Application is rejected.”

MCOCA Convicts Not Excluded Under 2006 Remission Policy: Bombay High Court While Allowing Arun Gawli's Early Release

Case Title: Arun Gulab Gawli v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 201

The Bombay High Court held that life convicts under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) are not excluded from the revised remission policy of 2006.

A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi sitting at Nagpur allowed premature release of gangster-turned-politician Arun Gawli convicted in 2012 under MCOCA observing –

“the petitioner is entitled to the benefits flowing from the remission policy dated 10.01.2006, which was prevailing on the date of his conviction. We also hold that by applying the rule of ejusdem generis, convicts of MCOC Act cannot be excluded from availing the benefits of the said policy.”

Filing Delayed Returns, Power To Condone Delay Is Conferred On CBDT To Ensure Substantial Justice; Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 202

Explaining the scope of powers u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income tax Act, the Bombay High Court clarified that the legislature has conferred power on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent no.3) to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing the matter on merits.

Hence, the High Court observed that routinely passing the order without appreciating the reasons why the provisions for condonation of delay has been provided in the statute itself, defeats the cause of justice.

A Division Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale reiterated that “CBDT should keep in mind, while considering an application of this nature, that the power to condone the delay has been conferred is to enable the authorities to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing the matters on merits and while considering these aspects, the authorities are expected to bear in mind that no applicant would stand to benefit by lodging delayed returns”.

Prima Facie Rigorous Conditions For Bail Won't Apply: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To MCOCA Accused With 24 Antecedents Of Chain Snatching

Case Title: Dipak P. Mali v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 203

The Bombay High Court granted bail to an alleged chain snatcher observing that rigorous conditions for bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) would not apply when all his criminal antecedents pertained to chain snatching.

Justice Madhav J Jamdar granted bail to one Dipak P Mali, alleged leader of a gang of chain snatchers in Pune observing -

“Although the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC”) have been invoked, all offences are of chain- snatching and therefore, prima facie rigors of Section 21(4) of the MCOC will not apply.”

As per Section 21(4) of MCOCA, before granting bail, the court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Widow Nearing Retirement Age, Bombay High Court Permits Son To Substitute Her In Compassionate Appointment Wait List

Case Title: Durgadas s/o. Sunil Saindane v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 204

The Bombay High Court allowed the substitution of a 55-year-old widow of a deceased employee by their 18-year-old son in the wait list for compassionate appointment, as she would not be entitled to any retiral benefits if given the appointment.

A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice RM observed that though the widow is eligible, it would be purposeless to grant her compassionate appointment for 4-5 years, because she would not be entitled for any service or retiral benefits.

“Even if this Court was to grant compassionate appointment to the widow, being a class IV employee, she would retire at the age of 60 after putting in around 4- 5 years in employment. She would not even be entitled for pension and the moment she gets compassionate appointment, present pension payable on account of the deceased husband's service, would also stop”, the court observed.

Bombay High Court Refuses Filmmaker Ramesh Sippy's Plea For Appointment Of Court Receiver In Property Dispute

Case Title: Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Ajit Sippy & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 205

The Bombay High Court rejected an interim application filed by filmmaker Ramesh Sippy in a property dispute concerning inheritance rights over various assets, including a flat in South Mumbai, shares in Sippy Films Pvt Ltd, and rights to 27 films produced by the production house.

Justice Manish Pitale refused to grant interim relief sought by Sippy, which included the appointment of a court receiver to manage the disputed assets. The court found no substantial evidence provided by Sippy to support his apprehensions regarding the disposal of the flat by the defendants.

“There is hardly any material placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff to show as to in what manner flat 5/A is being dealt with by the defendant Nos.9 and 10, which could give rise to any apprehension on behalf of the plaintiff. No case is made out for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the said flat.”

Sippy claimed that the production company, Sippy Films Pvt Ltd, and its directors were illegally enjoying the assets of his deceased parents.

S. 50 PMLA | ED Can't Record Statement At Night By Depriving Person's Right To Sleep; Leads To Impairment Of Cognitive Skills: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ram Kotumal Issrani v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 206

The Bombay High Court criticized the Enforcement Directorate for its practice of recording statements of persons summoned under section 50 of PMLA late at night, emphasizing the right to sleep as a basic human requirement.

“The `right to sleep' / 'right to blink' is a basic human requirement, inasmuch as, non-providing of the same, violates a person's human rights. It affects a person's health, may impair his mental faculties, cognitive skills and so on. The said person, so summoned, cannot be deprived of his basic human right i.e. right to sleep, by the agency, beyond a reasonable time. Statements must necessarily be recorded during earthly hours and not in the night when the person's cognitive skills may be impaired”, the court observed.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande directed the ED to issue guidelines for recording statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, ensuring respect for individuals' basic human rights.

“Consent is immaterial. Recording of statement, at unearthly hours, definitely results in deprivation of a person's sleep, a basic human right of an individual. We disapprove this practice. Thus, we deem it appropriate to direct the ED to issue a circular/directions, as to the timings, for recording of statements, when summons under Section 50 of the PMLA are issued, having regard to what is observed by us hereinabove.”

Jobs, Admissions Subject To Outcome Of Pleas Challenging Maharashtra Reservation Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 207

The Bombay High Court said that any applications for admissions to educational courses or recruitment to government jobs availing the Maratha quota would be subject to further HC orders on petitions challenging the reservation.

A full bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice GS Kulkarni, and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla adjourned to June 13, 2024 a batch of PILs and writ petitions challenging the reservation.

“if any applications are made pursuant to the advertisement dated 9th February 2024 for admission to undergraduate medicine courses on the basis of [NEET (UG)], 2024 or pursuant to any other such advertisement for making admission to any other educational courses where applicants seek benefit of the impugned enactment, participation of such candidates/applicants shall be subject to further orders which may be passed in these petitions”, said the court.

Similarly, any advertisements made post-enactment for recruitment in public employment would also be subject to further court orders, the court held.

“in case any advertisement has been made after promulgation of the impugned enactment for making any recruitment/appointment in public employment in connection with the affairs of the State, other State instrumentalities and State public undertakings/enterprises, the same shall also be subject to further orders which may be passed in these petitions”

The court directed the authorities to inform all participating candidates of this order.

“Certainly The High Court Should Not Scrutinise An Order Of The ITSC As An Appellate Court,” Says Bombay High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax Central v. Income Tax Settlement Commission

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 208

The Bombay High Court held that interference with the orders of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) should be avoided, keeping in mind the legislative intent. The scope of interference is very narrow, and certainly the High Court should not scrutinize an order of the ITSC as an appellate court. Unsettling reasoned orders from the ITSC may erode the confidence of assessees. The larger picture has to be kept in mind.

The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the ITSC was entitled to exercise discretion and has rightly exercised its discretion. The bench found that nothing was wrong with the judicial decision-making process of the Commission. When the department relies on the seized records for estimating the undisclosed income, we see no reason why the expenditure stated therein should be disbelieved.

Gives False Impression That It Is Official Mr. Bean Theme Park: Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Trampoline Park From Using Trademark

Case Title: Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Limited v. Mr. Bean Trampoline Park / Mr. Been Trampoline Park

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 209

The Bombay High Court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a Trampoline Park in Lonavla from using the trademark, artwork, device or character of Mr. Bean from the popular comedy series which was first broadcasted in January 1990.

The court compared the registered Mr. Bean Trademark with the allegedly infringing trademark of the trampoline park and concluded –

“On the comparison, indicated above, I must note that this is a perfect case of false endorsement where the impression given to the consumers is that the trampoline park of the Defendant is authorized or is an official theme park of the Plaintiff, which is not the case. Further, the Defendant continue to use the Impugned Marks despite being put to notice and its dishonest intention is writ at large…if the Defendant is not restrained by a temporary injunction, it will continue with its nefarious activities resulting in uncalculated losses, which may not be capable of being compensated in terms of money.”

The court restrained it from conducting any commercial activity using any mark containing the words 'Mr. Bean' / 'Mr. Been' and/or any other trademark, artwork, and character deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known registered said Trademark.

Bombay High Court Quashes SCN Demanding GST On Ocean Freight On Transportation Of Goods From Outside India

Case Title: M/s. Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Assist. Commissioner of State Tax.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 210

The Bombay High Court quashed the show cause notice (SCN) demanding GST on ocean freight on transportation of goods from outside India.

The bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals and observed that the verdict applies to both free on board (FOB) and sum of cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) contracts.

Investigative Journalism Doesn't Enjoy Special Protection; Public Interest Won't Permit Publication To Lower Down Reputation Without Any Truthfulness: Bombay HC

Case Title: Khanjan Jagadishkumar Thakkar v. Waahiid Ali Khan & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 211

Emphasizing the importance of balancing freedom of the press with an individual's right to reputation, the Bombay High Court observed that while investigative journalism serves a vital role in society, it cannot come at the expense of defaming individuals.

"As a Journalist, though he may be duty bound to appraise the public, of the facts and data which is in their interest, it definitely cannot be attempted at the cost of defaming the Plaintiff. The freedom of press, which is being evolved as a species of speech, definitely will have to be balanced against a right, which an individual has to his reputation", the court said.

Justice Bharati Dangre said that the claim of having exposed many scams does not authorize a journalist to publish something which may result in hatred, ridicule or contempt of the plaintiff merely on the pretext that it is in the public interest.

“Investigative Journalism definitely does not enjoy any special protection and the umbrage of public interest definitely do not permit a publication, which would amount to lowering down the reputation of any person, in any manner particularly without justifying the publication on the basis of its truthfulness”, the court held.

The court, while allowing an interim application in a defamation suit seeking a temporary injunction against an investigative journalist during the pendency of the suit, directed him to remove various prima facie defamatory posts from YouTube, X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook.

Refund More Than 10% Of Tax As Determined On Regular Assessment, CEAT Entitled To Interest On Refund Of Rs. 5.24 Cr.: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ceat Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 212

The Bombay High Court held that Ceat Limited is entitled to interest on a refund of Rs. 5.24 crore as the refund is more than 10% of tax as determined on regular assessment.

The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the words “amount of refund” must mean the whole of the refund of Rs. 5,24,29,950 and not an artificial split as canvassed by the Department. Therefore, irrespective of what the words “regular assessment” mean, the proviso would not be attractive.

[Cybercrime] IPC Can Simultaneously Be Invoked If Sections Under IT Act Don't Address All Ingredients Of Offence: Bombay High Court Full Bench

Case Title: Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 213

The Bombay High Court held that while the Information Technology Act, 2000 is a special Act for addressing cybercrimes and has an overriding effect, it does not preclude the application of IPC in cases where the offences are not adequately addressed under the IT Act

The court held that section 43 (penalty for damage to computer) read with section 66 (fraudulently or dishonestly damaging computer), and section 72 (breach of confidentiality and privacy) of the IT Act do not encompass all ingredients of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust, as defined under the IPC.

Thus, the court held that the aforementioned offences under IPC can be simultaneously invoked with the sections of the IT Act against an accused in respect of the same act.

A full bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil, Justice RG Avachat and Justice Shailesh P Brahme was answering a reference by a division bench regarding the interplay of provisions under the IT Act and IPC.

The court held that neither Section 43 nor Section 66 covers situations where the acts are done by inducing the owner or person in charge of a computer system through cheating, as required under IPC sections 415 and 420.

Comparing the elements of offences under Section 72 of the IT Act with those under IPC Sections 406, 408, and 409 in light of IPC Sections 403 and 405, the court concluded that Section 72 does not encompass situations where breaches of confidentiality are undertaken for personal gain or where access is secured dishonestly. Instead, such actions would fall under the purview of IPC Sections 406, 408, and 409, it held.

Further, the court held that Sections 43 and 72 of the IT Act do not cover criminal acts done with common intention.

Bombay High Court Suspends Life Sentence, Grants Bail To Man Convicted For Beheading Girlfriend's Cousin

Case Title: Nijam Asgar Hashmi v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 214

The Bombay High Court suspended a life sentence and granted bail to a man convicted of murdering the cousin of his girlfriend by beheading him.

A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam C Chandak prima facie rejected the prosecution's case to the extent that the murder weapon had human blood despite being found in a place filled with water.

“It is important to note here that, though the weapon used in the present crime was recovered from a ditch/pond in presence of P.W.2, from a place filled with water upto knee level, the Chemical Analyser Report mentions that, human blood was found on the said weapon. Prima facie we are unable to accept the case of the prosecution to that extent.”

Can A Section 29A Application Be Filed In The Commercial Court Or Only In The High Court? Single Bench Of Bombay High Court Refers The Issue To Larger Bench

Case Title: Sheela Chowgule v. Vijay V. Chowgule

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 215

The High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) referred the issue of maintainability of a Section 29A application seeking extension of the arbitration before the Commercial Court to a larger bench in view of conflicting views by two co-ordinate benches of the High Court.

The Bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed that the since Section 29A of the A&C Act not just involves extension of the mandate of the arbitrator, but also questions relating to the substitution, termination and reduction of the fees of the arbitrator, therefore, the power under Section 29A can only lie with the High Court in view of the appointing power given to it under Section 11 of the Act.

However, the Court remarked that since conflicting decisions are taken by the two co-ordinate benches, Judicial Propriety demands that the issue must be referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

Reception Held In Mumbai Not Part Of Marriage Ritual: High Court Declines Mumbai Family Court's Jurisdiction Over Husband's Divorce Plea

Case Title: Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216

Observing that reception can't be considered part of the marriage ritual, the Bombay High Court held that the family court in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over a divorce case just because the couple had the wedding reception in Mumbai and resided there for a few days.

“There is no dispute between the parties that all the rituals of the marriage took place on 7 June, 2015 at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. In Mumbai, there was only a wedding reception on 11 June, 2015. In my view, there can't be any doubt that a wedding reception can't be called as a part of marriage ritual”, the court observed.

Justice Rajesh S Patil allowed a woman's application challenging Family Court Mumbai's jurisdiction over her husband's divorce petition observing that the couple's actual last place of joint residence is in the US.

“Sec.19(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, nowhere mentions “last residing together in India”. In my view such words “in India”, can't be read in the sub-section (iii) of 19”, the court observed.

Although Adultery Is Grounds For Divorce, It Can't Be A Ground To Deny Child's Custody: Bombay High Court

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 217

The Bombay High Court held that adultery is a ground for divorce but cannot be a ground for denying custody of a child.

Justice Rajesh Patil dismissed a writ petition filed by son of a former legislator seeking custody of his nine-year-old daughter from his estranged wife on grounds of adultery.

“Adultery is in any case a ground for divorce, however the same can't be a ground for not granting custody”, the court observed.

The court relied on a January 2024 judgement by the Delhi High Court, which granted custody to a wife despite allegations of her extramarital affair being proven.

Director General Of Shipping's 2022 Order For Certification Of Accommodation Barges Not Applicable To Ships Registered Under Coastal Vessels Act: Bombay HC

Case Title: Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 218

The Bombay High Court held that the 2022 order of the Director General of Shipping for certification of accommodation barges does not apply to vessels which are not Indian ships registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, of 1858.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla temporarily stayed orders of the Directorate General of Shipping to detain three of the petitioner's non-self-propelled accommodation barges registered under the Coastal Vessels Act, of 1838.

The impugned detention orders dated May 8, 2023, May 22, 2023, and June 3, 2023, were issued due to alleged non-compliance with a general order issued by the Director General of Shipping, Mumbai (DGS) on October 20, 2022. This order laid down norms for the certification of offshore vessels and accommodation barges operating in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone, imposing additional conditions such as the installation of lifeboats.

“The measures as sought to be imposed on the petitioner as a consequence of the general direction as issued under the impugned order dated 20 October 2022 may be in the larger interest of the vessels and for benefit of the persons deployed thereon, however, when the impugned order is sought to be imposed on the petitioner, it can be imposed only if the law would permit the applicability of the said order to the category of vessels belonging to the petitioner and not otherwise”, the court observed.

Appointment Of Arbitrators From A Narrow Panel Of 4 Arbitrators Is Violative Of Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: NP Enterprises v. General Manager, Western Railway

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 219

The High Court of Bombay held that appointment of arbitrator from a narrow panel of 4 arbitrators is violative of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. It held that such practice of preparing narrow panels restricts free choice and give rise to suspicion that favourites are chosen.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that independence and impartiality of arbitrators is a hallmark of arbitration and the rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice, which is applicable with equal force in all quasi-judicial proceedings.

Bombay High Court Quashes Case Against Raj Thackeray For Abetting Violence And Public Property Damage In 2008

Case Title: Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 220

The Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray for alleged abetment of violence and public property damage arising out of a stone pelting incident in 2008.

Justice Nitin B Suryawanshi of the Aurangabad bench set aside lower court orders refusing to discharge Thackeray in a case involving MNS supporters allegedly attacking a state transport (ST) bus during a protest demanding his release from custody.

“In absence of any material on record to show instigation on the part of petitioner in the present crime, charge against petitioner is groundless and Trial Court as well as Sessions Court have failed to appreciate this vital aspect and have erred in rejecting prayer of petitioner for discharge. The impugned orders are therefore unsustainable in law and facts of the case”, the court held.

Thackeray was facing charges under sections 143, 341, 336, 337, 427, 109 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, section 135 of Bombay Police Act and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. These charges stemmed from an incident on October 21, 2008, where he allegedly incited violence resulting in damage to public property.

Other Developments

Take Action Irrespective Of Political Affiliation If Law & Order Breach Occurs During Ram Navami Rally: Bombay High Court To State

The Bombay High Court directed Maharashtra police to take all necessary measures to prevent any potential breaches, regardless of the political affiliations of the organizers or speakers, during the upcoming Ram Navami rally in Mumbai's Malwani area.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande was dealing with a writ petition seeking FIRs against BJP legislators Nitesh Rane, Geeta Jain And T Raja for alleged hate speeches during communal clashes in Mira Road in January.

“We cannot stop any public rally, but we expect your officers will take appropriate action in accordance with the law if there is any breach, irrespective of political party”, said the court.

The petitioners alleged that the organisers deliberately planned the rally in minority areas, and had in the past stopped the rally behind mosques. They sought directions for change in the route of the rally.

Addressing the apprehensions raised by petitioners regarding the Ram Navami rally, the bench asked the police to ensure alternate routes are taken. “Ultimately, a law-and-order problem comes, you (police) will face problems.”, the court said.

IT Rules 2021 | FCU Meant For Total State Censorship On Anything Govt Doesn't Want People To Know, Discuss, Debate Or Question: Kunal Kamra Tells Bombay High Court

The petitioners in pleas challenging the 2021 IT Amendment told the Bombay High Court that the purpose of a government fact check unit (FCU) is not to protect the public from misinformation but to bring total state censorship over anything that the government does not want people to know, discuss, debate or question.

“Under the impugned Rule, it is not the actual falseness or fakeness of the content but the very act of identification of content as such by the government FCU that the intermediary loses safe harbour…It is total state censorship of anything that the government does not want people to know, discuss, debate or question the government on that is the actual purpose of the impugned Rule”, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for Kamra contended.

Seervai said that the purpose of the Rule is not to give correct information to the public, but to save the government from criticism in the marketplace of ideas.

IT Rules Amendment | FCU Not Mandated To Disclose Truth Despite Purported Purpose To Ensure Informed Citizenry: Kunal Kamra To Bombay High Court

The petitioners in a plea challenging the 2021 IT Rules Amendment submitted before the Bombay High Court that there is no provision for the government fact check unit (FCU) to fulfil its purported intent of keeping the citizens informed.

“The ostensible purpose of the Rule is to ensure an informed citizenry. But the Rule doesn't require anything more than merely saying that statement A is false. What is the truth? No requirement of any disclosure. And this is important. Because if there was, then it could be tested. There are examples in the public domain where the PIB has said something is false. Others have countered with documentary evidence to show what they said to be false, actually it was the truth”, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for Kamra pointed out.

Senior Advocate Seervai pointed out that governments all over the world have data which is not in the public domain. He questioned whether FCU will have access to undisclosed information and pointed out that there is nothing in the Rule requiring FCU to disclose the basis of its conclusions.

“So just consider, words of indeterminate import, subjective satisfaction (of government FCU), material on the basis of which you (FCU) come to the determination not disclosed, and the ostensible purpose of the Rule is also not met”, Seervai highlighted.