Disposed

Rashmi Taylor v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2022CRPIL/14/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that under Article 226, it cannot intervene in judicial proceedings before a Sessions Judge. Instead, the petitioner was granted liberty to ventilate grievances before an ad-hoc committee constituted under the administrative side to recommend improvements in POCSO courts.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the ad-hoc committee to ventilate the concerns regarding POCSO trials.

Rashmi Taylor Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

3-crpil-14.2022.doc

¶2

Dusane

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 14 OF 2022

¶5

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶6

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2022.09.28 12:18:15 +0530

¶7

Rashmi Taylor …Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

¶8

Mr. Mihir Desai a/w Saziya Mukadam, Amla Shejwadkar for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State.

¶10

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2022

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. This petition, instituted in public interest, is at the instance of a social activist. It is averred that the petitioner is working with minor victims of sexual violence and their families, across Mumbai and adjoining districts. It is also averred that the petitioner is a support person in child sexual abuse cases as per the orders of the Child Welfare Committee.

¶13

2. The relief claimed in this petition is for (a) a direction to the Sessions Judge, 36^th Court at Mumbai to record the evidence of the victim and witnesses in Special POCSO Case No. 609/ 2018 within a period of two months; (b) a direction to the Sessions Judge at Thane to record the evidence of the

¶14

¶15

3-crpil-14.2022.doc

¶16

victim and witnesses in Special POCSO Case No. 120/2019 within a period of two months; and (c) a direction to all Special Courts concerned to endeavour to dispose of all POCSO cases (mentioned in the list, at Exhibit 'I') within a particular time frame; and (d) directions to all the Special Courts established under the POCSO Act to record evidence of all victims within 30 days of taking cognizance of the offence as far as possible and to further record reasons for adjournments sought either by the prosecution or by the defence. There are other prayers [nos. (f) to (k)] too in the petition which, inter alia, includes a prayer to issue directions to all Special Courts to strictly adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision in Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India , (2018) 17 SCC 299.

¶17

3. This petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, having regard to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1967 SC 1, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in respect of proceedings before a judicial forum. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would have been the proper course. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to consider prayers (a) to (e) on the judicial side at this stage. 4. However, interest of justice in our view would be better served if this petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner, who has been working with the victims of sexual violence as support person, to ventilate the concern/grievance expressed in this petition before the ad-hoc committee

¶18

¶19

3-crpil-14.2022.doc

¶20

comprising Justice Smt. Revati Mohite Dere, Justice Mr. A.S. Gadkari and Justice Smt. Bharati H. Dangre, constituted in terms of the administrative order of the Chief Justice dated 23rd June, 2022 to look into the matters arising out of the POCSO Act. If the petitioner approaches the ad-hoc committee with her suggestions to bring about improvements in the POCSO courts for ensuring delivery of quick, responsive and timely justice to the parties before it, we have no doubt in our mind that such committee shall proceed to make appropriate recommendations upon consideration of all relevant factors to address the concern/grievance laid before it, whereafter appropriate orders/directions may be obtained from the Chief Justice on the administrative side. Ordered accordingly.

¶21

5. On the aforesaid terms, the petition is disposed of.

¶22

6. No costs.

¶23

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶24

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Rashmi Taylor v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashmi Taylor v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Hidayat Khaalid Sami and Ors. Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Operative Socieities, Konkan Division and Ors.

Nanasaheb Bhimrao Patil Decd Thru Lhrs and Anr. Vs Smt. Shalan Mohanrao Mohite and Ors.

Shakila Ibrahim Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shravan Mahila Mandal Thr Its President Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Thr Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Khatoon E Hind Mahila Swayam Sahayyata Bachat Gat Vs Malegaon Muniicipal Corporation and Ors.

Pasayadan Mahila Vikas Sansthan Thr. President Smt. Uma Nandakumar Angadi Vs Sangli Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation and Ors.