The week that was: The Bombay High Court

It has been another eventful week at the Bombay High Court, with contempt matters, intra-governmental litigation, and much more. Here is the list of important matters that came up before the Bombay High Court this week..February 8.Dr.Leo Rebello in Contempt?.There was ample drama in store for courtroom No.43 with Dr. Leo Rebello’s appeal against contempt proceedings initiated by a Metropolitan Magistrate. It was Rebello’s contention that this was a misuse of Contempt of Courts act, 1971..The magistrate’s lawyer said Rebello’s behaviour was uncalled for, as were the multiple letters written by Rebello to the magistrate. In turn, although Rebello accepted writing these letters, he also said he was a respected doctor who always worked for the poor..During the proceedings Rebello called Kanade J. a “good judge” who was impartial. The court eventually reserved judgment in the matter..Tardy implementation of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.Priscilla Samuel, a petitioner in person, had sought the effective implementation of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Her petition, in which the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) was asked to assist, came up for hearing twice this week..Maharukh Adenwala, from TISS, submitted that 300 dowry deaths occur every year in Maharashtra; yet only 39 cases were registered under the Act. The state has been asked to file a detailed affidavit on the issues raised..Expanding the scope of Witness Protection..A suo motu petition regarding witness protection was heard this week. In accordance with previous orders, the Maharashtra government had filed a draft copy of Maharashtra Witness Protection & Security Bill, 2016. It turned out that the draft Bill did not contain the suggestions made by amicus DD Madon. The state was asked to take an opinion on the specific suggestions made by the senior counsel..February 9.Mobile Towers: A public health hazard?.A petition filed by Juhi Chawla against mobile towers in public places was heard this week. On February 2, after brief arguments, the matter was adjourned to February 9 but could not be taken up..Chawla’s lawyer, senior counsel Mihir Desai, said that these towers increase the level of radiation in the area specially after the incidence of smartphones. Aspi Chinai, lawyer for a petitioner in a connected PIL said that his contention was specific to RGPG’s (Recreational ground & play grounds) only..Government pleader S.K. Nair informed the court about a report submitted before the Allahabad High Court which says that this radiation is not harmful at all and it is only out of fear that this issue has been raised..Haji Ali: Entry of women sinful?.In June 2012, activists of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), a group that works for the empowerment of Muslim women, filed a PIL against the embargo on entry of women inside the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali dargah..The state was asked to give an opinion on the subject. Advocate General Shreehari Aney gave a detailed response this week. The court reserved judgment, and asked the parties to submit their written arguments within two weeks time..February 11.Railways vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.A Division bench of Justices A.S Oka and C.V Bhadang had asked Indian Railways to inform the court whether the due permission was taken from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) before putting up hoardings facing the road on railway premises ..Senior Advocate Joaquim Reis had submitted a reply to BMC’s letter regarding these hoardings by the Railways in the previous hearing. This week, Suresh Kumar, counsel for railways submitted that Section 328 A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was not applicable on their hoardings..The matter was adjourned to March 2..Adoption guidelines in Juvenile Justice Act of 2016.A petition against the 2015 guidelines issued by Central Adoption Resources Agency (CARA), including online selection of children. Amicus Mihir Desai informed the court that the Juvenile Justice Act of 2016 has a separate chapter on adoption based on the 2011 guidelines issued by CARA and that the 2015 guidelines are not in consonance with the new law. The petitioners were asked to amend their affidavit and the matter was adjourned to February 24.