The Bombay High Court directed the makers of Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi, reportedly based on Yogi Adityanath’s life, to approach the CBFC Revising Committee after certification was denied.

The Court asked the CBFC to inform the filmmakers of objectionable scenes by August 11 and for the makers to convey their stance on changes by August 12.

The CBFC claimed the film contained potentially defamatory content. The Court criticised the Board for not specifying the objectionable scenes earlier, noting that a vague two-line rejection violated Section 4(2) of the Cinematograph Act.

The matter will be heard on August 14.

The Bombay High Court has reiterated that due process of law cannot be denied to an accused person, affirming that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution must be upheld at every stage.

The court quashed a criminal case where the magistrate had taken cognisance without giving the accused a chance to respond to a protest petition.

It held that denial of such an opportunity violates natural justice and the fundamental rights of the accused.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL filed by four auto-rickshaw drivers challenging Rapido’s bike taxi operations in Maharashtra, alleging they used non-transport number plates and affected their livelihood.

The Court held that their right to livelihood wasn’t violated and noted the issue is already under consideration by the Supreme Court, which is examining the broader legal framework around bike taxi aggregators.  However, the petitioners were allowed to approach the State with a representation.

The rules formalise electric bike-taxi operations across the State and require aggregator companies to obtain a valid license before offering services. According to RTO officials, several companies, including Rapido and Uber, have already applied for the necessary licences.

[Amarjeet Rajnath Gupta v. State of Maharashtra]

The Bombay High Court directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to decide by August 6 on granting clearance for the film Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi.

The Court criticised the board for inaction, especially after prior directions to consider the matter. 

The petitioners argued that, is there any provision that says that a film or teaser cannot be made on a constitutional authority?

The Court reaffirmed the importance of timely administrative decisions, especially when creative expression is at stake.

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held that a husband’s friend cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, as he does not qualify as a ‘relative’ by blood, marriage, or adoption.

The woman had accused the friend of instigating her husband to demand dowry and evict her from their matrimonial home.

HC relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dechamma IM v State of Karnataka (2024), where it was held that even a girlfriend or a woman in a romantic relationship with a man cannot be considered a "relative" for the purposes of prosecution under Section 498A. 

The bench held that a friend does not fall within the statutory meaning of ‘relative’ under Section 498A.

The Bombay High Court has quashed a sessions court’s order for further inquiry into a defamation complaint filed by a man against his wife, who had alleged impotency during matrimonial proceedings.

The Court held that such allegations, made in divorce, maintenance, or FIR proceedings, fall under the ninth exception to Section 499 IPC and cannot attract defamation charges.

The court observed that such statements, made during matrimonial litigation, are relevant to prove cruelty and neglect under the Hindu Marriage Act and do not amount to defamation.

The Court further noted that the sessions court failed to provide adequate justification for remanding the case and disregarded the magistrate’s finding that the allegations were made during judicial proceedings.

The Bombay High Court has stayed a Pune trial court’s order that had barred Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (KPL) from licensing the ‘Kirloskar’ trademark.

The Court allowed KPL to continue licensing the mark to its group companies, as it has done for decades, but restricted it from licensing or assigning the trademark in businesses overlapping with Kirloskar Brothers Limited (KBL).

The Court held that the trial court overreached its powers by disrupting a long-standing arrangement.

The dispute arises from internal family tensions over trademark usage within the Kirloskar group. The matter will be heard next on August 11.

[Kirloaskar Propriety Limited vs. Kirloskar Brothers Limited]

A young advocate collapsed in the Bombay High Court on Friday after being sternly reprimanded by Justice A.S. Gadkari, reports confirm.

Eyewitnesses said the visibly nervous lawyer struggled to respond during questioning before fainting, prompting immediate medical aid. 

The incident has reignited debate within the legal fraternity on where firmness ends and bullying begins, especially since junior lawyers often face disproportionate pressure under aggressive judicial conduct. 

While judges like Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Gautam Patel are known for supportive courtroom atmospheres, others face criticism for harshness, leaving many to ask: Should fear be the cost of learning? 

The Bombay High Court has asked a senior pulmonologist to assess health hazards linked to pigeon droppings at public feeding areas called Kabutarkhanas. This comes amid petitions challenging the BMC’s move to dismantle these areas.

The court stressed that public health takes priority over feeding rights, citing links between pigeon exposure and severe lung diseases like hypersensitivity pneumonitis. A doctor from KEM Hospital has already submitted medical evidence.

The Court directed a detailed review and set August 7 for the next hearing. Meanwhile, it banned the use of firecrackers to disperse pigeons during the interim period.

[Gunvatrai Maganlal Shah v State of Maharashtra & Ors]

The Bombay High Court has acquitted a man convicted under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment to suicide), nearly three decades after his wife’s death by suicide.

The petitioner had allegedly taunted his wife about her dark complexion and cooking abilities, which the court described as domestic quarrels, not high-degree cruelty.

The Court noted no clear link between the alleged remarks and the suicide, which occurred years later.

The Court held that taunting or insulting alone does not fulfil the legal threshold for mental cruelty unless it’s persistent or tied to dowry demands. Consequently, the conviction was set aside.

[Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar v State of Maharashtra]

The Bombay High Court has directed Maharashtra RERA (MahaRERA) to reinstate the option of physical hearings within four weeks. 

The Court found that MahaRERA was conducting only virtual hearings, even after the COVID-19 pandemic, which it said restricted access to justice.

A bench led by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale held that litigants must be allowed to choose between physical and virtual hearings.

The Court emphasised that access to justice must be meaningful and not just procedural. The order came in a plea by Mayur Desai, highlighting systemic delays and a lack of transparency at MahaRERA.

The Bombay High Court has directed that all Plaster of Paris (PoP) idols up to 6 feet tall must be immersed in artificial tanks during Ganeshotsav, Durga Puja, and other upcoming festivals.

The court overruled the State’s policy that allowed idols above 5 feet in natural water bodies, stating the need to reduce environmental harm. Authorities across Maharashtra are now required to strictly enforce this order.

The court also ordered steps to reuse large idols, promote smaller ones, and set up a committee to explore eco-friendly methods for dissolving PoP idols. These orders are temporary and will be reviewed in eight weeks.