Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday permitted Samajwadi Party Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Rais Shaikh to convert his petition challenging the decision of the Maharashtra government to set up an Inter-Faith Marriage Family Coordination Committee before a bench headed by Acting Chief Justice into a public interest litigation (PIL). 

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale noted that the petition seemed to be in the nature of a PIL and hence the petitioner (Shaikh) could convert the same into a PIL. 

The bench said petitioner should take up matter in appropriate manner

The bench noted, “Other than the name and address of the petitioner, there is no statement of fact about the petitioner. The petitioner is not concerned with the subject matter. He may have public interest but then it is open to him to take it up in an appropriate manner.” 

During the hearing on Monday, the judges wondered how the petition was circulated in the media even before it could be taken up by the HC. “How is it that, even before we have seen this petition, every media person has seen it? If you want to test this in the media forum, then don’t waste our time. Every media forum has seen this. If you want them to decide, we couldn’t care less,” said Justice Patel. 

Maharashtra govt issued GR on December 13 on inter-faith marriage panel

The Maharashtra Government issued the GR on December 13, 2022 following the gruesome murder of Shraddha Walkar in Delhi allegedly by her inter-faith live-in partner. The committee is meant to provide a platform to ‘counsel, communicate and resolve’ issues between couples and families. The committee comprising 13 members is to be headed by Women and Child Development Minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha.

SP MLA contested that the panel is attempt to discourage/ forbid interfaith marriages

The SP MLA filed a petition last week alleging that the GR is the government’s attempt “to discourage and/or forbid inter-faith marriages and is essentially a pre-cursor to laws related to purported love jihad marriages which has been stayed in numerous States of India.”

Shaikh alleged the GR was an attempt by the government to discourage and forbid inter-faith marriages and is a precursor to laws related to alleged ‘love jihad’ marriages

The plea seeks that the state government be directed to withdraw the said GR and declare that the same is in violation of the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted interim protection to former minister and NCP MLA Hasan Mushrif for two weeks and meanwhile asked him to approach the special court seeking pre-arrest bail in the alleged money laundering case related to a sugar mill.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Mushrif seeking quashing of the ECIR (akin to a First Information Report) registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against his three sons officially related to the Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd.

Judges say all contentions on merits open

While asking Mushrif to approach the special court, a bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Sharmila Deshmukh has asked the special judge hearing cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to hear his plea, if filed, at the earliest. “Petition is filed. No coercive action is sought. The petitioner to approach the trial court. We protect him for two weeks,” noted the bench in its order. The judges said they have kept all contentions on merits open and posted Mushrif’s plea seeking quashing of the case after four weeks.

During the hearing on Tuesday, Mushrif’s Advocates Aabad Ponda and Prashant Patil argued that the HC, on May 2, 2022, stayed the special court order initiating criminal proceedings in a cheating case registered in Kolhapur. The matter was considered a predicate offence; meaning it was a part of the money laundering case.

Mushrif premises searched on March 11

The counsels argued that Mushrif premises were searched on March 11, a day after the HC granted him relief. On March 10, the HC, directed that no coercive action be taken against Mushrif in the Kolhapur case till further order. The court also remarked that there was a “deliberate attempt” to take action against him in the ED cases.

The judges asked Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the ED, whether the central agency intends to arrest Mushrif. Singh replied that if the MLA wants protection he can file for pre-arrest bail before the special court. He can’t seek protection from arrest under the guise of quashing proceedings, he said.

“ED’s investigation is dependent on the predicate offence”

Ponda contended that ED’s investigation is dependent on the predicate offence. The ED’s malafide (intention) is already under the HC’s judicial scrutiny and the same FIR (in the Kolhapur case) is being investigated. Hence, it’s only fair that his client is granted relief, Ponda said.

Mushrif’s plea said the ED’s real intention was to target him. Therefore, despite having no case and the matter pertaining to the predicate offence being stayed, the agency was trying to arrest him possibly at the behest of BJP’s Kirit Somaiya. “It is common knowledge as to how in recent times the ED office is being used to wreck political vengeance and either severely damage or completely destroy political careers,” the plea alleged.

 The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a plea to immediately list a plea seeking permission to allow students to appear in annual examinations in Karnataka’s pre-university colleges with their head scarf.

A woman lawyer mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud. The lawyer submitted that exams are five days later and added they had come earlier also, and sought urgent listing of the plea.

The bench told the lawyer, “You come on the last date, what can we do?” The Chief Justice said the new bench to hear the matter will be created after the Holi break.

On February 22, the Supreme Court agreed to examine a plea for hearing by a group of students seeking permission to allow them to appear in annual examinations in Karnataka’s pre-university colleges with their head scarf.

Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing on behalf of the students, had then submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud that they had to appear in annual examinations beginning from March 9 in government colleges.

The top court queried the counsel, why are they prevented from taking the examination? The counsel replied because of the headscarf and further added that the students had already lost one year and if no relief was granted, they would lose another year. The bench said the plea for listing would be examined.

On January 23, the Supreme Court agreed to examine a plea to constitute a three-judge bench to consider petitions challenging ban on hijab in classrooms of pre university colleges in Karnataka.

The Supreme Court, in October last year, gave a split verdict on petitions challenging the validity of ban on hijab worn by some Muslim girl students in classrooms of pre-university colleges in Karnataka. The split verdict was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Justice Gupta, retired now, upheld the Karnataka government circular and dismissed the appeals against the Karnataka High Court judgment. However, Justice Dhulia quashed the Karnataka government’s decision to ban wearing of hijab inside classrooms of pre-university colleges, saying that the Constitution is also a document of trust and it is the trust the minorities have reposed upon the majority.

Justice Dhulia, in his judgment, said: “We live in a democracy and under the Rule of Law, and the laws which govern us must pass muster the Constitution of India. Amongst many facets of our Constitution, one is Trust. Our Constitution is also a document of Trust. It is the trust the minorities have reposed upon the majority.”

The bench had then said since there is divergence of views, the matter would be posted before the Chief Justice of India for setting up a larger bench.