Bombay High Court: “Can’t Dismiss POCSO Cases in Consensual Minor Relationships Until Centre Clarifies”

The Bombay High Court said it cannot dismiss POCSO cases involving consensual relationships with minors until the Central government makes its stand clear. The court emphasised that such cases need careful legal scrutiny, not blanket dismissal.

CJI Gavai Praises Bombay HC Bench in Kolhapur: “Every Citizen Should Get Justice Without Spending Much Time & Money”

CJI B.R. Gavai praised the proposal for a Bombay High Court bench in Kolhapur, saying every citizen should get justice “without spending much time and money,” highlighting the need to improve access to justice across Maharashtra.

Bombay High Court Directs Police: “Enhance Family Court Security”

The Bombay High Court ordered increased security measures in family court premises. The decision comes after the court noted a rise in incidents of violence and assaults in these courts. The bench emphasized the need to ensure the safety of judges, lawyers, and litigants. Authorities have been directed to implement strict security protocols immediately.

Supreme Court Feels Like the Most ‘Undisciplined’ Court: SC Justice B.R. Gavai

Justice B.R. Gavai criticized the Supreme Court for its lack of discipline, calling it “the most undisciplined court” compared to the organized High Courts. He pointed out disruptive behavior among lawyers during proceedings and reiterated prior concerns about orderliness. Gavai is set to become India’s second Dalit Chief Justice in May 2025.

Illegal Cattle Transportation | ‘Rightful Owners & Truck Have Right to Possess Property During Ongoing Trial’: High Court Rejects Gaushala’s Plea

The Bombay High Court rejected a gaushala’s plea for custody of cattle seized in an illegal transportation case. Justice YG Khobragade said that the rightful owners of the cattle have the right to keep their property during the ongoing trial. The decision highlights the need to respect ownership rights while the case is being heard. This ruling supports the legal process and clears up property rights in such cases.The Bombay High Court rejected a gaushala’s plea for custody of cattle seized in an illegal transportation case. Justice YG Khobragade said that the rightful owners of the cattle have the right to keep their property during the ongoing trial. The decision highlights the need to respect ownership rights while the case is being heard. This ruling supports the legal process and clears up property rights in such cases.

Menstrual Leave Policy|| CNLU Approves 2-Day Leave & Flexible Learning Policies for Students

Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) introduced a menstrual leave policy alongside initiatives allowing students to complete their courses at their own pace. Approved during an Executive Council meeting on December 17, the move aims to promote inclusivity and prioritize student well-being. These steps highlights the university’s dedication to supporting its diverse student body.

“It Would Improve Access to Justice for Residents of Remote Areas”: Justice BR Gavai Urges for Establishing Bombay HC Bench at Kolhapur

Yesterday, On 29th September, Justice BR Gavai advocated for a new Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court to enhance legal access for remote residents. Speaking at a groundbreaking for the Advocate Academy in Taloja, he underscored the role of lawyers in addressing economic disparities and promoting social justice in India.

“Should Courts Solve it by Judicial Review?”: SC Rejects Plea Against Renaming of Aurangabad, Osmanabad

The Supreme Court Today (August 2nd) rejected the appeals filed against the decision of the Maharashtra State authorities to rename city and revenue divisions of Aurangabad and Osmanabad as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv respectively. SC

Renaming Aurangabad and Osmanabad: Bombay High Court Rejects the Plea

Today (8th May): The Bombay High Court dismissed petitions challenging the renaming of Aurangabad and Osmanabad as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv. The court ruled that the renaming notifications were not illegal and affirmed the state government’s authority to make such decisions. The government stated that the renaming did not incite religious or communal hatred, and cited previous unsuccessful attempts to change the names.