The Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned the propriety of a recent order from the Thane Sessions Court that stayed specific findings of a magisterial inquiry report, which had held five police officers responsible for the alleged fake encounter of Akshay Shinde, the accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case.

Shinde, an attendant at a private school in Badlapur, was arrested in August 2024 for allegedly sexually assaulting two kindergarten girls in the school toilet.

On September 23, 2024, he was killed in an alleged encounter while being transported by police from Taloja prison to Kalyan in Thane district for questioning. The police claimed that Shinde snatched a firearm from one of the officers, opened fire, and was killed in retaliatory shooting.

However, a magisterial inquiry into the incident concluded that Shinde’s killing was unnecessary and held five police officers responsible for his death.

After the inquiry report, the police officers involved challenged the findings, prompting the Thane Sessions Court to issue an interim order on February 21 staying the findings while their revision application was pending.

On Thursday, a Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale raised concerns over the Sessions Court's intervention, especially while the matter was already before the High Court.

"Isn't this overreaching the court's jurisdiction? When the High Court is seized of the matter, how can a Sessions Court stay the report?" Justice Dere asked, highlighting the issue of jurisdictional overreach.

The judges further questioned the legal standing of the stay on a magisterial inquiry report, which was recommendatory in nature and did not affect any legal rights.

“In the last hearing, you (the State) yourself said that the magisterial report is recommendatory and does not impact any rights. If it does not affect rights, how is the ADR revisable?” Justice Gokhale asked.

Justice Dere added,

"It's not an order; it's a report. Is it even a judicial proceeding?"

The Court also criticised the State for failing to object to the revision application before the Sessions Court and demanded clarity on whether the State planned to challenge the order.

"Tell us if it is a revisable order. When the High Court is seized of the matter, was this brought to the judge’s notice? Is the State going to challenge the order or not? Let us know. Are you (State) not appalled and shocked?"

Additionally, the bench questioned whether the sessions judge in Thane had committed judicial impropriety by staying the findings of the inquiry report.

“We will also examine whether this amounts to judicial impropriety and insubordination when the matter is pending before this court,” the bench observed.

In response to the parents of the accused, who expressed a desire to withdraw from the case during the previous hearing, the High Court appointed Senior Advocate Manjula Rao as amicus curiae to assist it.

Rao will help determine whether an FIR should be filed against the police officers based on the findings of the magisterial report.

She will also help examine whether the ongoing judicial commission, led by former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Dilip Bhosale, or the CID inquiry creates any legal obstacles to concluding the Accidental Death Report (ADR). Furthermore, she will assist the Court in assessing the legality of the Thane Sessions Judge’s order staying the report.

The bench will continue hearing the matter on March 5 after the newly appointed amicus goes through the past orders, magisterial inquiry report and other materials pertinent to the case.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a judicial officer for suppressing his criminal antecedents prior to his appointment as a Civil Judge Class-II in 2007 [Atul Thakur v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].

One of the criminal cases against the judicial officer Atul Thakur dated back to 2002 when he was running a petrol pump and was accused of overcharging consumers. He was cleared of the charges in that case in 2008. 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, however, noted this case was still pending in 2007 when Thakur applied for the judicial service post, though it later ended in compromise for some of the charges and acquittal for the rest.  

The Court added that Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is undisputedly an offence of moral turpitude and the matter related to cheating customers cannot be considered trivial as was argued by Thakur.

“If a person who is selected for the post of Civil Judge suppresses a pending case or a previous prosecution in the matter of cheating, then it cannot be said to be a trivial matter. In any case, cheating is never a trivial matter and it certainly amounts to moral turpitude," the Court said.

The Bench rejected Thakur’s argument that he was just a student at the time of appointment and thus ignorant about legal matters. 

“It is surprising to note that a candidate getting selected to the post of Civil Judge Class - II is projecting himself to be ignorant about legal matters and such ignorance is not pleaded by a School or College student, but by a Civil Judge selectee, that too at the time when he was around 30 years of age,” it said.

Similarly, the Court also rebuffed Thakur’s claim that since he was informed by his then-counsel that the case had been compounded after the filing of an application, he had not disclosed the FIR.

“It cannot be believed that a Civil Judge selectee did not know that some of the offences are non-compoundable and that the case comes to end not by filing application, but upon passing order by the Court,” it remarked. 

After his appointment as judicial officer in 2008, Thakur was placed under suspension in 2010, but the same was revoked in 2012. Meanwhile, he was issued a chargesheet in 2011 for suppressing the information about two FIRs - from 2002 and 2007- in the attestation form filed by him when he applied to join the judicial services.

The charge related to the suppression of one of the FIRs was proven. Consequently, Thakur was dismissed in 2015. His representation for reconsideration of the decision was turned down by the High Court on the administrative side in 2017.  He then moved the High Court with a writ petition. 

His counsel submitted that the departmental enquiry against Thakur suffered from various technical defects and that the case was not a case of willful suppression of criminal antecedents.

It was a case of bonafide mistake as there was no suppression of required information in a willful manner, it was argued.

It was also argued that Thakur did not deserve harshest punishment of dismissal from service as the criminal cases were of trivial nature.

The Court noted that the attestation form signed by Thakur, before his appointment, had queries related to the candidate having ever been prosecuted or if there was any case pending against him.

Thakur was bound to disclose the 2002 FIR even if he was under the impression that the case was compromised, the Court said.

“In Column 12 (ख) specific mention was made that if in response to any of the queries, the answer is 'Yes', then complete particulars of the crime, FIR number, date of challan, name of Court, status of case, etc. has to be given. The petitioner did not disclose the fact of he having been prosecuted. Even if he was under impression that the case has been compromised on 15.11.2007, then it was evident that he had been prosecuted, because FIR was registered in the year 2002 and he was bound to disclose that fact," the Court's ruling stated.

The Court thus concluded that it was a case of  willful suppression of material information in the character attestation form.

It refused to grant Thakur the benefit of a Supreme Court ruling that in such cases, the employer can look into the nature of criminal cases and socio-economic strata of the candidate.

“In the present case, the petitioner belongs to a upper strata of society as he admits to belong to business family and running a petrol pump. The query in the attestation form was clear and he is a legally trained person and got selected to the post of Civil Judge. The offence in question also amounts to moral turpitude as it was an offence of cheating along with provisions of Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, this judgement does not help the petitioner at all,” the Bench said.

Senior Advocate Manoj Kumar Sharma and advocate Quazi Fakhruddin represented the petitioner. 

Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi and advocate Anshuman Singh represented the respondents.

[Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions granting powers to Customs and Goods and Services Tax (GST) officials to makes arrests.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Bela M Trivedi and MM Sundresh held,

"...a penalty or prosecution mechanism for the levy and collection of GST, and for checking its evasion, is a permissible exercise of legislative power. The GST Acts, in pith and substance, pertain to Article 246-A of the Constitution and the powers to summon, arrest and prosecute are ancillary and incidental to the power to levy and collect goods and services tax. In view of the aforesaid, the vires challenge to Sections 69 and 70 of the GST Acts must fail and is accordingly rejected."

The Court was deciding on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

Section 69 of the CGST Act empowers GST officers to arrest individuals if they believe an offence under Section 132(1) has been committed, while Section 70 grants them the authority to summon individuals for inquiries.

The petitioners contended that these powers go beyond the scope of taxation and infringe upon fundamental rights. The key contention was that the provisions are criminal in nature and could not have been enacted under Article 246A of the Constitution.

Under the Customs Act, 1962, customs officers have the power to arrest individuals suspected of committing offences related to smuggling, mis-declaration, or evasion of customs duties.

Section 104 of the Act empowers them to arrest a person if there are "reasons to believe" that the individual has committed an offence punishable under the Act. However, the power to arrest is classified based on the severity of the offence. Those punishable with imprisonment of more than three years are considered cognizable and non-bailable, allowing officers to take immediate action. 

The petitioners argued that the powers of arrest were being misused, leading to arbitrary detentions and violations of fundamental rights. The Court was tasked with interpreting the scope of these provisions, particularly in light of the 2011 decision in Om Prakash v. Union of India, which had held that offences under the Customs Act were non-cognizable and bailable, requiring a warrant for arrest.

However, subsequent amendments to the Customs Act in 2012, 2013, and 2019 had reclassified certain offences as cognizable and non-bailable, allowing customs officers to arrest without a warrant in specific cases. The petitioners contended that these amendments were inconsistent with the principles laid down in Om Prakash and violated constitutional safeguards.

In a related case, State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, the Supreme Court has previously held that the power to arrest under the GST Act is statutory and should not be ordinarily interfered with by High Courts under writ jurisdiction. However, it emphasised that such powers must be exercised only when there is a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed.

In January 2025, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) amended the guidelines concerning the arrest procedures under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework. This amendment mandates that GST officers must provide a written explanation of the specific "grounds of arrest" to the individual being detained, ensuring that the arrested person fully understands the reasons for their arrest. Additionally, officers are required to obtain a written acknowledgment from the individual confirming receipt and comprehension of these grounds.

Upholding Om Prakash

The Court decisively upheld the Om Prakash ruling, which established that offenses under the Customs Act were primarily non-cognizable and bailable, requiring a warrant for arrest. The Court noted that the legislature has, in subsequent amendments, effectively endorsed this interpretation.

Customs Act amendments and safeguards

The Court noted that the 2012, 2013, and 2019 amendments to the Customs Act had explicitly classified certain offences as cognizable and non-bailable, while others remained non-cognizable and bailable. This classification was in line with the legislative intent to balance enforcement needs with individual rights.

The Court upheld the amendments, stating that they provided sufficient safeguards against arbitrary arrests. For instance, Section 104(1) of the Customs Act requires that an officer must have "reasons to believe" that a person has committed an offence before making an arrest. The Court emphasised that this standard is higher than the "reasonable suspicion" threshold under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

"The threshold for arrest under Section 104(1) of the Customs Act is higher than that under Section 41 of the Code. Section 41 allows the police to arrest a person without a warrant, if a “reasonable complaint has been made”, or “credible information has been received”, or “a reasonable suspicion exists” that the person has committed a cognizable offence. In contrast, Section 104(1) sets a higher threshold, stipulating that a customs officers may only arrest a person if they have “reasons to believe” that a person has committed an offence," the Court found.

GST Act provisions

The Court applied similar reasoning to the GST Acts, noting that Section 69 of the GST Acts allows for arrest only in cases of serious offences involving tax evasion or fraud exceeding specified monetary thresholds. The Court stressed that arrests under the GST Acts should not be routine and must be based on credible material.

Customs officers are not police officers

The Court also addressed the argument that Customs officers should be treated as police officers, firmly rejecting this notion.

"In a line of decisions of this Court — State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, and Illias v. Collector of Customs — it has been decisively held that customs officers are not police officers," the judgment stated, referencing several Constitution Bench judgments.

Applicability of CrPC to Customs and GST laws

The Court held that the CrPC is applicable to the Customs Act and GST laws unless expressly or impliedly excluded by the special statutes. This is in line with Sections 4 and 5 of the CrPC, which state that offences under any other law (other than the Indian Penal Code) shall be investigated, inquired into and tried according to the CrPC, unless the special law provides otherwise.

The Court emphasised that the Customs Act and GST laws are not complete codes in themselves regarding arrest, search and seizure, and thus, the provisions of the CrPC apply where these statutes are silent.

"We would, therefore, agree with the contention that the GST Acts are not a complete code when it comes to the provisions of search and seizure, and arrest, for the provisions of the Code would equally apply when they are not expressly or impliedly excluded by provisions of the GST Acts," the judgment said.

Safeguards and judicial review

The Court emphasised that the power of arrest under both the Customs Act and GST laws must be exercised with due caution and in compliance with the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 22 (protection against arrest and detention).

The Court held that the reasons to believe, as recorded by the arresting officer, must be based on credible material and the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee in writing. This is to ensure that the arrestee can challenge the legality of the arrest and seek bail.

Voluntary payments and coercion

The Court addressed concerns that taxpayers were being coerced into making voluntary payments under threat of arrest. It clarified that while voluntary payments are permissible under Section 74(5) of the GST Acts, they must not be made under duress.

"However, it is to be noted that the figures with regard to the tax demand and the tax collected would, in fact, indicate some force in the petitioners’ submission that the assessees are compelled to pay tax as a condition for not being arrested. Sub-section (5) to Section 74 of the GST Acts gives an option to the assessee and does not confer any right on the tax authorities to compel or extract tax by threatening arrest. This would be unacceptable and violative of the rule of law," the judgment said.

Justice Trivedi authored a judgment concurring with the view of the majority judgment authored by CJI Khanna.

[Read Judgment]

The Karnataka High Court recently overturned the suspension of a Karnataka State Transport (KST) constable who had run into trouble after videos of him sleeping while on duty went viral on social media [Chandrashekhar v. The Division Controller, Disciplinary Authority, KKRTC].

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the constable could not be faulted for taking the power nap when he was made to put in extra hours of work for around a month.

Due to a staff shortage, the constable had been working 16-hour shifts, which was twice the hours that KST constables are generally expected to work.

"It is trite, if a person is asked to over work than his capacity, the body sometimes makes the said person to sleep, as sleep and work life balance is what is necessary today. It may be a constable today, tomorrow it can be anybody. Depriving sleep to any human being, will lead falling sleep anywhere," Justice Nagaprasanna said, while granting the constable relief and ordering his reinstatement to service as well as the payment of salary for the period of his suspension.

The Court was hearing a plea moved by one Chandrashekhar, a 33-year old KST constable who was suspended from duty in July 2024. The suspension was ordered after he was found sleeping on the job in April that year. Videos of this went viral on social media, and the State authorities ordered his suspension for bringing disrepute to the Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC).

In his defence, the KST constable told the Court that he was made to work double shifts, which left him exhausted. He pointed out that even a vigilance report indicated that there was a staff shortage of two-three personnel at the depot where he worked. Instead of hiring additional staff, he was made to repeatedly work in double shifts leaving him sleep deprived, the Court was told.

The constable added that he fell asleep after taking certain medicine prescribed by a doctor.

The Court was sympathetic to the constable's plight, noting that sleep and leisure are important parts of work-life balance.

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the importance of work-life balance has even been recognised by international covenants such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, under Article 24.

 "In the light of Article 24 ... everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay," the Court noted.

It added that such international covenants indicate that work hours should not exceed 48 hours in a week and 8 hours in a day, except in exceptional circumstances.

The Bench further noted that other High Courts, such as the High Courts of Calcutta and Uttarakhand, have stressed the importance of one's rights to periodical rest and sleep.

The Court concluded that the suspension order against the overworked constable in this case was unsustainable.

"If the petitioner has slept while on duty, when his duty was restricted to a single shift, it would undoubtedly become a misconduct. In the case at hand, the petitioner is made to over work by two shifts of 16 hours, in 24 hours, for 60 long days without break. Therefore, the action of the respondent placing the petitioner under suspension for the folly of the respondent, is undoubtedly an action which suffers from want of bonafides, the order is thus rendered unsustainable and is to be obliterated," the Court said.

Advocates Ravi Hegde and Vinay Kumar Bhat appeared for the petitioner constable. Advocate Prashant S Hosmani appeared for the disciplinary authority of the KKRTC.

[Read Order]

The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday remarked that although live-in relationships are becoming more prevalent, they may not yet have full societal acceptance, and the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) law aims to accommodate this shift while ensuring the rights of women and children born from such relationships.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Ashish Naithani made the observation while hearing two PILs - one filed by social activists from Uttarakhand and the other by a live-in couple challenging the constitutional validity of the State's UCC Act.

The Bench issued notice, tagged these petitions with a batch of similar pleas and scheduled them for hearing on April 1.

Advocate Vrinda Grover appearing for the petitioners contended that the UCC Act and its Rules enable excessive state surveillance and policing of personal choices, which fall within the ambit of the right to privacy. She argued that the UCC establishes a stringent statutory framework involving inquiry, authorisation and penalisation of partner choices.

During the hearing, Justice Tiwari questioned whether the mere requirement of relationship registration could be challenged as unconstitutional.

In response, Grover said that although the law is being presented as a measure to safeguard women's rights, a closer examination reveals that it could instead heighten harassment and violence against women and couples who do not conform to majoritarian norms.

She further pointed out that the law grants parents and other external actors access to registrants’ personal details, enabling vigilantism. Additionally, it permits any individual to file a complaint questioning the validity of a live-in relationship, she argued. She asserted that social morality should not override constitutional morality.

Grover contended that the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar details violates the Supreme Court’s judgment in Puttaswamy.

Appearing for the State, Solicitor General for India Tushar Mehta assured the Court that the matter was being examined. He submitted that the UCC Act, 2024 does not violate the right to privacy, but serves as a regulatory mechanism aimed at protecting women who are often vulnerable and face injustice.

Mehta further emphasised that the statutory scheme was formulated after extensive consultations with all relevant stakeholders.

After considering the arguments, the Court issued notice on the petitions and on Grover’s request, it recorded that “if any penal action is initiated against any individual, they are at liberty to move this bench.”

In the first PIL, the couple is in a consensual live-in relationship. While the female petitioner’s family supports their relationship, the male petitioner faces familial hostility, including threats from his brother, forcing them to live in rented accommodation.

Their concerns about harassment and interference in live-in relationships have intensified with the enactment of the UCC, which mandates registration of live-in relationships under Section 381(1) and imposes punitive sanctions, including jail time, effective from February 27, 2025.

The woman, who identifies as queer, is compelled to register under a heteronormative framework, violating her right to self-determination, the plea stated.

The plea further contended that the State UCC Act, 2024, and UCC Rules, 2025 are challenged for violating fundamental rights, including privacy, dignity, decisional, associational and reproductive autonomy.

The mandatory registration, summary inquiry and police notification provisions are argued to be unconstitutional, exposing couples to harassment, coercion and violence, it was added.

Additionally, the plea asserted that Act’s binary gender framework fails to recognise diverse gender identities, infringing upon constitutionally guaranteed rights upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

The second PIL has been filed by three petitioners who have made contributions to women’s rights and social justice in Uttarakhand, and a senior journalist with over 26 years of experience in social justice advocacy and disaster relief.

They argued that UCC is regressive and symbolic, failing to address structural causes of gender violence and falling short of the egalitarian vision of Article 44 of the Constitution.

By excluding Scheduled Tribes, transgender individuals and LGBTQIA+ persons, the Act deepens legal inequities rather than fostering true equality, the plea stated.

Additionally, the plea highlighted that the lack of procedural safeguards raises concerns about its implementation and potential misuse, risking further marginalisation of vulnerable communities.

Delhi University (DU) on Thursday said that it has no reservations in showing the degree of Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi to the Delhi High Court, but will not expose it to the scrutiny of strangers.

The submission was made by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta before Justice Sachin Datta during the hearing of DU's plea challenging the 2017 Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the varsity to furnish information related to Modi's degree to a Right to Information (RTI) applicant.

"The degree of one student is demanded, who is the PM of the county. We have nothing to hide. We have year-wise register where everything is mentioned. DU has no objection in showing the original degree for BA in 1978 to Court...DU has no reservation in showing but I will not expose university records to the scrutiny of strangers who are here either for publicity or for some oblique political motive," Mehta submitted.

The Court today reserved its decision in the case. The other parties in the case were heard in earlier hearings.

The issue arose after then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in 2016 asked PM Modi to “come clean about his educational degrees” and “make them public”. Modi had sworn in his election affidavit that he graduated from DU in the B.A. Political Science course in the year 1978.

Subsequently, Aam Aadmi Party supporter Neeraj Sharma filed an RTI seeking details of PM Modi’s degree from Delhi University. The University denied disclosure of the information related to the degree, stating that it was “private” and had “nothing to do with public interest”.

In December 2016, Sharma moved the CIC against the University’s response. Information Commissioner Prof M Acharyulu passed an order directing DU to make the register containing the list of students who passed the Bachelor of Arts programme in 1978, public.

On January 23, 2017, the University moved High Court challenging the CIC order. The Court had in January 2017 issued notice to Sharma and stayed the order after noting SG Tushar Mehta’s arguments that the order has far-reaching adverse consequences and that all universities in the country which hold degree details of crores of students in a fiduciary capacity.

During the hearing of the matter on Thursday, SG Mehta, appearing for DU, submitted that right to know is not an untrammeled right.

"In Puttaswamy case, there was one conclusion, unanimously passed, that right to privacy is protected under Article 21. Right to privacy supersedes right to know," he added.

Mehta further submitted that personal information cannot be sought under the RTI Act.

"The authority will have to decide that what is your interest. They say that in public interest it needs to be given, Somebody has passed out in 1978. It is not relatable to his public duty, you are wanting to use it for political purpose," SG stated.

"We have it but we will not give it as we are not statutorily bound to. We have nothing to hide, we can show it your Lordship. In principal we will have to oppose, otherwise would be flooded with lakhs and lakhs of applications. There a quite a few free people in this world who would seek one information or the other," he further submitted.

Mehta also argued that the RTI Act cannot be used to intimidate officers.

"Public authorities will not be able to exercise their purpose if such applications are entertained. People would be searching old documents, would be bogged down. RTI Act cannot be used as a tool to intimidate officers doing their duty."

SG Mehta also said to the RTI applicants that they are making a mockery of the RTI Act and defended the ₹10 charge for applications.

"You have made a mockery out of the RTI Act. If a public functionary is receiving thousands of applications, the minimum ₹10 charge as per statute will be required. You cannot have the luxury of filing RTI in the manner you like," he submitted.

The Registrar General of the Bombay High Court on Thursday informed the Court that the Central Project Coordinator is working on a module for the automated listing of cases, which will be finalized soon.

Additionally, the Registry is preparing a standardized format for praecipes (a single-page document which contains details of a case that is sought to be mentioned for listing) to streamline the process of circulating case files.

A Division Bench of Justice A S Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata today also directed the Registry to consider proposals submitted by other stakeholders, including the Bombay Bar Association, the Bombay Incorporated Law Society, and the Advocates’ Association of Western India, regarding the format for praecipes and any other suggestions.

The Court granted these bodies two weeks to submit their suggestions.

“After the draft (for praecipe) is prepared, you will show all the stakeholders the format for praecipe that will be used for circulation,” the Bench observed.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) challenging the lack of uniformity in mentioning procedures before different Benches. 

The petition argued that such inconsistencies violate the fundamental right to access justice and the principles of natural justice.

Currently, after filing a petition, lawyers must mention their cases before the roster Bench to request an early listing date. 

Without such mentioning, newly filed cases may take days or even weeks to be scheduled for a hearing.

BLA has highlighted that while some judges permit oral mentioning, others require written requests, online forms, or in-person submissions to court clerks, leading to delays and arbitrary decisions.

To address this, BLA has proposed an automated listing system to ensure that all newly filed matters are placed before the relevant Bench within four days, eliminating the need for any mentioning.

The Court had first heard the plea on January 30, when advocate RS Datar, representing the High Court, sought time to take instructions.

The matter will be heard next after four weeks.

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday asked the State government to file its response to a public interest litigation (PIL) that has challenged the Congress-led regime's decision to order public prosecutors to withdraw 43 criminal prosecutions in various cases, including those linked to the 2022 Hubballi riots.

A Bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice MI Arun observed that a strong prima facie case had been made out by the petitioner and posted the matter for further hearing on March 17.

The plea has been filed by a lawyer named Girish Bharadwaj, who contended that the State cannot issue such dictates to public prosecutors. He pointed out that under Section 321 (withdrawal of prosecution) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), public prosecutors have the final say in such matters.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai cited Supreme Court judgments which lay down that the prosecutor's office is not expected to act like a post office and that the State cannot exert pressure on prosecutors to withdraw cases.

He further argued that in this matter, the Law Department as well as the Prosecution and Government Litigations Department had opined that the 43 cases were not fit for withdrawal.

Despite this, the State's Home Department proceeded to issue an order on October 15, 2024, directing prosecutors to file applications under Section 321 of the CrPC for the withdrawal of the criminal cases, which involve serious charges such as rioting, attempt to murder, attacks on police officers and criminal trespass.

This includes the Hubballi riots cases, which involve allegations that a mob of Muslim persons threw chappals at a police station and destroyed property on the premises after a protest outside the station escalated. The protests followed unrest after a man put up an inflammatory social media post.

According to reports, other cases proposed to be withdrawn include those against farmer leaders and Kannada activists. The petitioner added that these cases involved influential people and politicians, which further cast doubt on the motives of the State.

"Several criminal cases were registered in several police stations across the State of Karnataka from 2008 to 2023. Out of those, 43 cases were cherry-picked and were proposed to be withdrawn from the prosecution. The 43 cases proposed are of highly influential personalities such as Former Ministers, MLAS, Presidents of influential organizations, indicating ulterior motives behind the proposal," the plea filed through Advocate Shridhar Prabhu of Nayana Law said.

Dalwai thus urged the Court to suspend the operation of the October 2024 State order.

However, the Bench declined to do so after noting that the trial courts concerned were yet to decide on the withdrawal applications that were directed to be filed on the State's directions.

"The court (courts dealing with the Section 321 CrPC applications for withdrawal of cases) is yet to apply mind. We can't prejudge. You can show this to the courts, no court will permit withdrawal. If court permits, it will be at the peril of the Court also," Chief Justice Anjaria orally observed.

[Read Live Coverage]

The Calcutta High Court recently quashed an order summoning Microsoft Global Services Centre (India) in a case related to the sale of a pirated version of Microsoft Office on Amazon.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee found that the magistrate did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) while issuing the summoning order.

Section 202 CrPC states that when an accused resides at a place beyond the jurisdiction of magistrate, the court must conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process.

“It appears that ld. Magistrate issued the process under section 204 of the Cr.P.C. by a cryptic order on 24th January 2022,” the High Court said, adding that mandatory enquiry was not conducted in the case.

In 2021, D&I Taxcon Services Private Limited had filed a complaint before a metropolitan magistrate in Kolkata against eight accused including Microsoft. It was stated that the firm in 2019 purchased ‘Microsoft Office Home & Business, 2019’  through Amazon and the product was received with a product key for installation. However, at the time of the installation of the software, the firm faced a problem.

Following some communication with Microsoft, a separate product key was provided, but the software again could not be installed. The problem persisted even after another key was provided. The complainant alleged that despite repeated requests, the issue was not resolved.

Ultimately, Microsoft in 2021 informed the complainant firm that it had been cheated, as it had received a pirated version of the software from the seller on Amazon. 

Justice Mukherjee found that the complainant had not made any contact or agreement with Microsoft, but instead purchased it from one Datacorp Software LLP through Amazon India.

“It is not in dispute from the complaint that the ‘Microsoft’ had detected that the software which the opposite party no.2 had allegedly purchased from accused no.1 through Amazon is not a genuine one but a pirated version,” the Court said.

The Court further said that there was nothing on record to show that Microsoft was connected with Datacorp or its partners.  

“If the said product is a pirated version, as detected, it should have been made clear by the complainant why ‘Microsoft’ would manufacture pirated version and what is the role of present petitioners in manufacturing and/or marketing pirated version of its own product,” it added.

Consequently, the Court quashed the summoning order since the mandatory procedure was not followed. However, the Court remitted the matter to the magistrate for passing a fresh order.

“It is made clear that I may not be misunderstood that I am suggesting that these two petitioners/accused persons cannot be proceeded with at all but what is emphasized is that there is no presumption against these two accused persons for committing the alleged offence from the complaint and the initial deposition and since these two petitioners reside outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned, the magistrate was required to apply his mind on the above mentioned aspects, while passing summoning order under section 204 Cr.P.C."

Advocates Sandipan Ganguly, Ayan Bhattacharjee, Shounak Mitra, Zulfikar Ali Alquaderi and Aditya Sarkar represented Microsoft.

Advocates Tapas Dutta and Matrayee Chatterjee represented the complainant.

[Read Judgment]

Corporate law focussed firm Rajaram Legal has rebranded itself as River Law.

Founded in 2017, the firm has partnered with leading companies and investors including Lenskart, SoftBank, DailyHunt, Premji Invest and upGrad, helping them navigate through complex transactions.

On this rebranding, the firm stated in a press release,

"We believe in navigating complexities, streamlining deals, and fostering meaningful partnerships — just as a river carves its path with purpose and momentum."

To learn more about River Law, visit the website.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.