HC questions state over removal of prosecutor in Payal Tadvi case, seeks affidavit
A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice MM Sathaye was hearing a petition filed by Abeda Tadvi, mother of the deceased doctor, challenging the state's March 7 notification removing Gharat from the high-profile case.
Dr Payal Tadvi, a 26-year-old postgraduate medical student who belonged to the oppressed Tadvi Bhil caste--an Adivasi Muslim community, died by suicide on May 22, 2019, allegedly due to caste-based harassment by three senior colleagues — Dr Hema Ahuja, Dr Bhakti Meher and Dr Ankita Khandelwal — at the Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital. The three were arrested under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, but are currently out on bail. The trial has not yet commenced.
In November 2024, while serving as SPP, Gharat moved an application seeking to implead Dr Yi Ching Ling Chung Chiang — then head of the obstetrics and gynaecology department — as a co-accused, for allegedly failing to act on repeated complaints of harassment made by Payal and her family. The application, based on the report of the college's anti-ragging committee and an early complaint by the family, was allowed by a special court on February 28, 2025.
Just a week later, the state removed Gharat from the case, replacing him with advocate Mahesh Manohar Mule — a decision that was neither explained in the notification nor communicated with the victim's family, prompting Payal's mother to move the High Court.
During Thursday's hearing, the bench questioned the rationale behind the government's move. 'The complainant has confidence in this special public prosecutor. Why disturb the situation?' the court asked.
Responding on behalf of the state, additional public prosecutor Shreekant Gavand said Gharat had allegedly been acting independently without consulting the investigating officer or keeping them informed of court proceedings. 'He took the decision of impleading the new accused on his own,' Gavand said.
He cited Rule 4(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which permits the state to denotify a special public prosecutor if he fails to conduct the case with due care — provided reasons are recorded in the denotification order.
But the bench noted that no such reasons were mentioned in the official order removing Gharat. 'You have simpliciter withdrawn him. The law requires you to supply reasons. Now, reasons cannot be assigned after the decision is taken,' the court observed.
The state has now been asked to file an affidavit responding to the petition, explaining its decision to replace Gharat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Prima facie cognisable offence made out': Bombay HC directs govt to register FIR in Parbhani custodial death in a week
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday passed an interim order directing the Maharashtra government to register FIR within one week in custodial death of Somnath Surwayanshi, a labourer picked up by the police in December, 2024 following protests in Parbhani. The HC directed that FIR be registered based on the complaint filed by Somnath's mother on December 18, 2024, making allegations against police officers and that investigation be handed over to the officer of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) rank. The court observed that there was 'prima facie material on record' to show that 'cognizable offence was made out', therefore the state should have registered the FIR. Suryawanshi (35), a labourer who was pursuing law, was among nearly 50 people arrested by the Parbhani police on December 11, 2024 following violent protests staged against December 10 vandalisation of a replica of Constitution outside Parbhani Railway station. Suryawanshi, belonging to a nomadic tribe, died in judicial custody in a local jail on December 15 last year, which police claimed was due to heart attack. A division bench of Justices Vibha V Kanknanwadi and Sanjay A Deshmukh passed an interim order on plea by Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi, mother of Somnath, who alleged that he died due to custodial torture and brutality by police officers. The government had transferred the probe from local police to the state CID. Advocate Prakash Ambedkar, appearing for the mother, argued that despite the Judicial Magistrate having inquired into custodial death under section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the state government was not ready for registering FIR and taking further action. The magistrial inquiry had concluded that the police officers were responsible for his death. The petitioner, among other prayers, sought from court the direction to the state government to register FIR under section 103 (punishment for murder) and other provisions of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) along with sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Justice Kankanwadi observed that in case of any medical query about death of a person, the inquiry or investigating usually approach the medical officers who conducted the autopsy. However, in the present case, 'interestingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, State CID, has taken his own decision to make queries and seek opinion from a team of medical experts from JJ Hospital (state run), Mumbai and the Committee appears to have given a report on April 4, 2025 to Deputy Superintendent of Police, state CID, Parbhani.' The HC said that while it would not express opinion at present, the question that required to be gone into was why he did not seek an opinion of the seven-member team from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar that conducted the autopsy. Justice Kankanwadi for the bench perused 'entire record' and noted that there were 24 visible injuries as per postmortem report along with internal injuries. 'The question would then arise as to who has caused those injuries,' HC said. As per records, the bench said age of injuries was between few hours to four days before the death and all abrasions were between two to four days before the death and the team of seven doctors had given a probable cause of death as 'shock following multiple injuries'. 'Now, when there was prima facie material on record i.e. on the basis of inquest panchanama, postmortem report, report of Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 196 of BNSS and the complaint application by the petitioner, a cognizable office was made out and, therefore, State ought to have registered the FIR. The guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, were prima facie made out,' the HC held. 'We are of the opinion that the material which she was placing before the police, were sufficient for registration of the FIR,' the HC held in its interim order, posting further hearing on other prayers in the plea to July 30,
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Keep dustbins near vends: MC chief tells city vendors
Ludhiana: Taking another initiative to keep the city clean, MC commissioner Aaditya Dachalwal Friday issued an order directing street vendors to ensure dustbins/ garbage receptacles near their vends. The order states that they can face penalties of up to Rs 2,000 if they fail to do so, and if the area around around their vends is littered with waste. An FIR can also be registered against them for repeated violations. The civic body can also seize their material/equipment. Civic teams will create awareness among the street vendors, and if they still fail to comply with the orders, action will be initiated against them under relevant sections of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976; the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The street vendors have been asked to keep separate dustbins/garbage receptacles for dry and wet waste. They should hand over the garbage to garbage collectors or dump the garbage at designated sites (transfer stations) only after closing down their vends at night. Vendors must also refrain from burning waste, spitting, urinating in public spaces, or using banned single-use plastic items at their stalls. The enforcement teams of MC's sanitation (health branch) and tehbazaari wings will regularly monitor compliance and take appropriate action against violators. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 年最紓壓的農場遊戲！無需安裝 東加：島嶼農場 立即播放 Undo Commissioner Dachalwal said this is among the many steps being taken to ensure cleanliness across the city. A copy of the order issued by the commissioner has also been sent to the office of the police commissioner. If necessary, environmental penalties could also be imposed on the violators under applicable provisions of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Three get 10-yr jail term in 2013 child trafficking case
Mangaluru: The second additional district and sessions court sentenced three persons to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in connection with a child trafficking case that took place in Ullal police station limits in 2013. The convicted are Lineta Veigas, 38, her husband Jossy Veigas, 58, and his mother-in-law Lucy Veigas, 65, all residents of Pajeer. Special public prosecutor (SPP) Jyothi Pramod Nayak said acting on a tip-off about a child being sold illegally, the Childline and police laid a trap on July 26, 2013. Social activist Vidya Dinker posed as a Muslim woman, and police officer Iqbal acted as her husband. They met the accused at the Children Clinic in Thokkottu to 'buy' the two-and-a-half-month-old baby girl at around 6.30pm. Accused Lineta Veigas, Rangavva alias Geetha, a resident of Badami; Jossy Veigas, and Lucy Veigas also arrived at the clinic. Rangavva, who was holding the baby girl, intended to sell the child to Vidya and Iqbal, who were posing as the Muslim couple. Lineta introduced Rangavva to Vidya as the child's biological mother and agreed to hand over the baby in exchange for Rs 2 lakh. The child was handed over to Vidya after making an initial payment of Rs 90,000 and agreeing to pay the remaining amount the next day. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Portable AC Under $60 With No Installation Necessary is Selling Out in the US Undo In the meantime, the police team entered the scene and arrested the accused. It was revealed during the investigation that Lucy Veigas contacted Rehna, an anganwadi worker, seeking help to obtain an Aadhaar card for the child. Lucy informed that it was her daughter's child. Suspecting foul play, Rehna informed the Childline, which then coordinated with Ullal police and social activist Vidya Dinakar to lay the trap. A case was registered under sections 370(4) and 34 of the IPC based on a complaint by Childline staff member Ashuntha D'Souza. On June 30, Judge Jagadeesh VN held Lineta, Jossy, and Lucy guilty. Meanwhile, Rangavva passed away during the trial. On Thursday, the court sentenced the three accused to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 each. In case of non-payment of the fine, the convicts will face an additional six months of imprisonment. The court also ordered the seizure of cash and five mobile phones belonging to Lineta Veigas by July 31. The SPP said the investigation was carried out and a chargesheet was filed by the then PSI of Ullal, Ramesh H Hanapur. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses during the trial. An advocate, with whom Lineta sought legal advice, also helped the prosecution as a witness. Lineta lured Rangavva to hand over her child when she was working in a stone quarry at Pajeer. At present, Lineta is the mother of a 40-day-old infant, the SPP said.
