Mumbai: Bombay High Court has rapped the deputy registrar, cooperative societies (K-West ward), for reopening proceedings on June 1 over bifurcating a housing society in Andheri West after a proposal was already rejected by his predecessor.Justice Sandeep Marne in Tuesday’s verdict said merely because the officer who passed the April 21 order got transferred, “the same did not give any authority to the successor officer to undertake re-adjudication of the proceedings. What is done by the new incoming officer on the post of deputy registrar is an action unknown to law.”Shiv Shopping Centre CHSL comprises 63 residences and 28 shops. Seventeen shop owners sought the society’s bifurcation. In a Nov 2025 general body meeting, the majority voted against it as it would disrupt ongoing redevelopment. On April 21, the deputy registrar in a “detailed and reasoned” 16-page order rejected the 17 members’ proposal, saying it is not appropriate to divide the society. He sent the order to Mumbai District Housing Federation for its opinion. His successor on June 1, stating that the bifurcation proposal was “closed for orders,” issued notices for a hearing on June 8. He also sought the federation’s opinion. On June 16, HC stayed further hearings.Senior advocate Birendra Saraf for two members argued that the April 21 communication was the deputy registrar’s “remarks” and not an “order,” rejecting the proposal. But Justice Marne noted that the successor officer, in his affidavit, “himself admitted” his predecessor had rejected the proposal subject to obtaining the federation’s opinion. The judge said rejection cannot be subject to federation’s opinion. He agreed with the society’s advocate Mayur Khandeparkar that after rejection, calling for the federation’s opinion was unnecessary. Only if the registrar prepares a draft scheme for bifurcation, the federation’s opinion is to be sought.Justice Marne said the predecessor deputy registrar had rejected the proposal at the “threshold” and had not deemed it necessary to prepare a draft scheme as he had formed an opinion against bifurcation. Therefore, he had passed the April 21 “order” rejecting the proposal, the judge concluded. He further said the successor seeking to re-adjudicate the rejected bifurcation proposal “is like exercising the power of review which the deputy registrar does not possess.” “This court deprecates the enthusiasm exhibited by the (successor) deputy registrar,” he added. Setting aside the June 1 communication, he said the 17 members are free to prosecute their appeal against the April 21 order.

Mumbai: Observing that some of the content was “vile’’ “abusive’’ and “certainly defamatory’’, Bombay high court on Wednesday granted urgent interim relief to Union transport minister Nitin Gadkari and directed social media intermediaries to remove posts, including videos, that linked him to the ethanol-blended fuel (EBP) controversy.Gadkari had sought judicial intervention against Meta platforms, X Corp, Google LLC, and others to delete online content he alleged were “false, fabricated, and defamatory”, AI-generated deepfake videos and other manipulated digital content linking him incorrectly to EBP programme.Passing the order, a single-judge bench of Justice Arif Doctor said the online platforms ought to have prepared a framework to take down such content without necessitating a court intervention each time.Gadkari’s suit, argued by his counsel Sandeep Ladda, contended that the online posts went beyond legitimate political criticism or satire and transgressed on his personal rights, his public persona, his personality rights with “profane and abusive’’ content. The Union minister sought Rs 11 crore in damages from John Doe (unnamed and unidentified persons or entities) who posted the “malicious, false…’’ content.“I can only say that the same is absolutely vile and abusive,’’ Justice Doctor said, on seeing the content Ladda cited. “Such material should have no place on a public platform, which is accessible to everyone, including young.’’The HC asked the counsel for Meta and others, if the intermediaries had any measures in place for taking down defamatory content and directed them to give “basic customer information’’ of content creators which Gadkari can use to add them as parties.The Centre introduced ethanol-blended fuel in 2003 as a national policy and the programme is exclusively administered by the petroleum ministry, said Gadkari’s suit, where he has “no role’’ to play. Motorists and critics have claimed that blended fuel corrodes fuel tanks in older or non-compliant cars.The HC granted Gadkari the liberty to convey to the online platforms any future abusive content and to approach the court in case of any “grey area’’ and kept the matter after four weeks again.

Multiple services in govt hospitals were crippled on Wednesday

Mumbai: On Day 2 of the strike called by resident doctors in Maharashtra over allowing homeopaths to practise modern medicine based on a one-year certificate course, multiple services in govt hospitals were crippled on Wednesday. The national-level Indian Medical Association (IMA) entered the fray, warning the state govt that if the move is not rolled back, there will be a pan-India strike of doctors and medical students.With 12,000 junior doctors on strike, including over 2,000 at the four BMC-run medical colleges in the city, routine outpatient and inpatient services, elective surgeries and central laboratory services were among those suspended. Patients with no severities were turned away at many hospitals. Similar disruptions were reported across the state.At the time of going to press, Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors (MARD) said the strike will now be indefinite and will include withdrawal of all routine clinical, academic and non-critical emergency services until further notice. At govt hospitals, these services are managed entirely by resident doctors and their withdrawal would mean severe disruptions.Medical education secretary Dheeraj Kumar asked the state IMA to withdraw the strike, but it refused.No additional homeopaths were registered during the day by Maharashtra Medical Council since Neha Pawar’s enlistment on Tuesday.As the strike intensified, govt hospitals across the state asked professors and senior resident doctors with some interns to attend to OPD calls.OPD numbers at state-run JJ Hospital fell by 23% till noon, from a daily average of 1,735 to 1,333. Patient admissions dropped significantly—from 102 on average daily to just 12. At least 10 elective surgeries by the hospital’s general surgery department were postponed. As opposed to its daily average of 39, the hospital just performed four major procedures. Similar disruptions were seen at the four BMC-run medical colleges.A doctor from JJ Hospital’s surgery department said some residents still attended to patients on compassionate grounds. “We do not want patients to suffer. Many of them come from far away. We are requesting govt to not push us further.”An intern at the facility’s medicine department said there was just one resident doctor on call for severe cases. “The unit is usually packed with a few resident doctors and interns.”Even the pulmonary department, which caters to a large number of TB patients, faced disruptions as no resident was there to look after the pulmonary function test.MARD president Dr Atharva Shinde said, “If the doctors do not strike now, human lives and patient safety in the long run would be impacted as more and more unqualified individuals would prescribe medicines haphazardly.”Elsewhere in the state, outpatient services were badly affected, including at Govt Medical College and Hospital and Indira Gandhi Govt Medical College and Hospital in Nagpur. The response from Pune’s doctors and hospitals was mixed—while OPDs and elective procedures were affected in some hospitals, they remained operational as usual in others.The private medical sector, which has many state IMA members, was largely unaffected by the strike call.While warning of a pan-India strike in a letter to CM Devendra Fadnavis, IMA’s national unit flagged that dual medical council registration is unprecedented and not allowed anywhere in India. “It is neither well thought out nor justified. There are no guidelines or SOPs laid out for the same. It also creates misinformation among the general public about the qualifications and capabilities of the doctor in treating their ailments,” said the letter. (With additional reporting from Nagpur and Pune)Nod given only on Aug 4, but giving out modern meds since 2017Chembur-based homeopath Neha Pawar became eligible to prescribe modern medicines only on Tuesday, but she disclosed to TOI that she has been prescribing allopathic drugs since 2017.She completed her one-year certificate course in modern pharmacology in 2022.Operating out of a clinic in Mankhurd, which sees high rates of infectious diseases, Pawar said she routinely provides medical services for complex conditions such as TB and even Guillain-Barré Syndrome. “No problem has happened till now. Even my patients have no issues with me being a homeopath.”Bahubali Shah, administrator of the homeopathic council, said on Tuesday homeopaths and other practitioners of alternative forms of medicines have been prescribing modern medicines to patients for years. IMA member Dr Jayesh Lele said the association has been opposing such quackery through “mixopathy”.

Homeopaths questioned the inconsistent opposition

Mumbai: It’s one of Maharashtra’s medical paradoxes: why are practitioners of one traditional system of medicine—ayurveda—legally permitted to prescribe modern medicines in a limited capacity, while an attempt to extend a similar privilege to homeopaths has triggered an agitation by allopathic doctors?The answer lies in the route taken.Over three decades ago, a govt notification allowed qualified BAMS practitioners to prescribe specified allopathic medicines. The BAMS curriculum had by then expanded to include anatomy, physiology, pathology, surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, forensic medicine and pharmacology. BAMS students were also posted to allopathic hospitals during internship, giving them hands-on exposure to modern medicine.As oncologist Dr Purvish Parikh wrote in a 2023 paper published in South Asian Journal of Cancer, several states, including Maharashtra, MP, UP, Karnataka, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, issued circulars allowing ayurveda practitioners to use allopathic medicines and modes of treatment. The reason was practical: to enable ayurveda practitioners, especially in rural areas, to provide emergency care in situations such as heart attacks, snakebites, poisoning, complicated deliveries and trauma until specialised treatment is available.When homeopaths sought comparable rights, Maharashtra took a different path. It enacted Maharashtra Homeopathic Practitioners and Maharashtra Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2014, introducing a one-year bridge course, after which BHMS graduates could prescribe specified allopathic medicines. It also allowed them to obtain dual registration—with both Maharashtra Homeopathy Council and Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC), the regulator for modern medicine. That decision began a long period of litigation.“IMA is agitated because a BHMS doctor was granted registration with MMC. But in 2014, when the amendment allowing dual registration was passed, MMC itself was headed by an IMA panel. Why didn’t they instead argue for changes like what was done for ayurveda?” asked a senior govt official.Homeopathy leaders said the opposition is inconsistent. “Ayurveda and unani practitioners have long been allowed to prescribe allopathic medicines without such protests. Why is the same principle unacceptable for homeopaths?” asked Dr Bahubali Shah of Maharashtra Homeopathy Council at a public forum on Tuesday.However, former state president Dr Jayant Lele said the issue is not only about prescribing rights but also about dual registration. If a patient dies, which system of medicine would be held responsible? Dual registration blurs legal and professional responsibility, argued Dr Lele.State officials said they cannot change the old Act or court directives. “We had to start MMC registrations due to a court directive. Moreover, since the 2014 amendment is part of the law, any change may require judicial intervention,” said an official. Bombay HC is scheduled to hear the matter on Aug 13-14.

UMC had dismissed Bhadane in 2023 after a departmental inquiry

–Ulhasnagar: Former Ulhasnagar municipal corporation (UMC) deputy commissioner Yuvraj Bhadane has secured significant legal relief with Bombay high court and a sessions court ruling in his favour in two separate cases that had led to his dismissal from civic service three years ago, reports Pradeep Gupta.Bhadane, who was fired after a departmental inquiry into several allegations primarily concerning discrepancies in his birth certificate and a rape case filed with Turbhe police, claimed the court orders have effectively cleared his name and paved the way for his reinstatement. His advocate Deepak Mishra alleged the cases against Bhadane were the result of a conspiracy by those upset over his demolition drives against illegal constructions.Addressing a news conference on Wednesday with his advocate Deepak Mishra, Yuvraj Bhadane said Belapur sessions court had acquitted him in the rape case after the complainant stated during the trial that he was not the person who had sexually assaulted her and that she was seeing him for the first time in court. Citing the absence of evidence and other deficiencies in the prosecution’s case, the court acquitted him.In the alleged manipulation of his date of birth records submitted at the time of joining service, HC upheld the validity of his birth certificate and directed the trial court not to frame charges against him, observing that there was no material to support allegations of manipulation.Mishra said since the courts had granted relief in both matters, the civic administration should reinstate Bhadane with all consequential service benefits, including consideration for promotion.UMC had dismissed Bhadane in 2023 after a departmental inquiry held allegations against him had been “proved”. Bhadane had once reported a person who allegedly tried to bribe him, leading to the individual’s arrest by Anti-Corruption Bureau. However, his own career has been marked by controversies.The allegation against Bhadane was that he had shown his date of birth as June 1, 1972, in his official records, whereas his actual birth year was 1970, and that he had secured the post in UMC using incorrect birth records. However, during the hearing, Bhadane’s counsel produced documents before the court, which accepted that his date of birth was indeed June 1, 1972.Meanwhile, Bhadane has also filed a writ petition before the Bombay high court challenging the UMC’s order dismissing him from service. The matter is currently pending adjudication before the HC.

Baba Siddique was gunned down on October 12, 2024, near his son Zeeshan ‘s office in Bandra East

Mumbai: A special MCOCA court on Wednesday issued a show cause notice to the investigating officer in 2024 murder case of senior NCP leader Baba Siddique “for prima facie wilful disobedience” of the court’s earlier order directing steps to secure the presence of absconding accused Anmol Bishnoi.Assistant commissioner of police Subhash Dudhgaonkar has been directed to file a written explanation on or before August 12, to show cause “as to why appropriate action should not be initiated” against him.Emphasising the obligation of investigating authorities to obey court orders, the judge observed, “Judicial orders are required to be obeyed by authorities entrusted with the administration of criminal justice. Once a lawful direction is issued by a competent court, it is incumbent upon the investigating officer to make sincere and bona fide efforts to comply with the same,” special judge Satyanarayan R Navander said. “In the present case, prima facie, the conduct of the investigating officer reflects deliberate disregard of the directions…”Siddiqui was gunned down on October 12, 2024, as he was leaving his son Zeeshan Siddiqui’s office in Bandra East.Bishnoi, alleged to be the main accused at whose behest the killing was carried out, is currently lodged in Tihar Jail after being arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Delhi following deportation from the US in November last year.On July 10, calling it unfortunate that the court has to issue directions to ensure compliance with procedure, the judge had directed the prosecution to secure Bishnoi’s custody and sought a compliance report after two weeks. The court had noted that if physical custody could not be obtained, Bishnoi’s production through videoconferencing could be explored. The court had also indicated that the investigating officer could visit the jail for interrogation, if permissible, while also securing Bishnoi’s virtual presence before the city court so that the trial was not delayed.The order came on a plea filed by Siddique’s wife Shehzeen, who alleged that the prosecution was deliberately avoiding taking the principal accused into custody. Advocates Pradip Gharat and Trivankumar Karnani, appearing for Shehzeen, submitted that the police were avoiding taking his custody to prevent the names of the “actual” conspirators from being revealed.The prosecution had argued that Bishnoi’s physical custody was necessary for interrogation, but such custody could not be obtained because the Government of India had, by an order dated December 5, 2025, prohibited Bishnoi’s removal from Tihar Jail for one year or until the conclusion of the Delhi case, whichever is earlier.Subsequently, the investigating officer obtained a production warrant from the Mumbai court and moved a Delhi court for Bishnoi’s physical production. The Delhi court rejected the request, relying on the same central government restraint order.On Wednesday, the intervenor filed another plea, formally accusing the police of filing an evasive, dishonest, and misleading report, in an alleged attempt to save the accused from a lawful trial.The MCOCA court found the compliance report filed by the police inadequate. The order recorded that the report was “conspicuously silent regarding any effort made to comply with the directions issued by this court in its order”. The court further noted, “There is no explanation as to why no attempt was made to secure the presence of the accused through videoconferencing or by adopting any other legally permissible mode as indicated by this court.”When Dudhgaonkar appeared before the court, he submitted that proper investigation could not be carried out unless Bishnoi’s physical custody was obtained, and therefore the option of production through videoconferencing was not pursued. Rejecting this explanation, the court observed, “The explanation offered by the investigating officer is wholly unsatisfactory. The directions issued by this court were explicit.”The court said the investigating officer had merely repeated an exercise “which was bound to fail in view of the existing restraint order” instead of making genuine efforts to comply with the court’s directions. The order stated, “The compliance report does not disclose any endeavour to implement the directions of this court in their true letter and spirit.”