The Bombay High Court on Friday strongly criticized the Maharashtra government for its handling of an adjournment request in a set of petitions involving former senior police officers and others. The state’s justification for the delay—the impending appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP)—was met with displeasure by the court.
Case Details
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande. The petitions were filed by:
- Mr. Sanjay Pandey (1986-batch ex-IPS officer), former Mumbai Police Commissioner;
- Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, a lawyer;
- A group of police officers.
These petitions seek to quash two FIRs registered against them at the Colaba and Thane police stations earlier this year.
Court’s Response to Adjournment Request:
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) requested more time to appoint an SPP, prompting sharp remarks from the bench. The Bench said, “Now? After we have heard the case substantially and specifically directed that we hear the case? We could have taken serious note of this, but we want you to express our displeasure to the Public Prosecutor (PP).”
The APP apologized for the inconvenience and sought an adjournment to a date convenient to the court. However, the bench retorted, “Our convenience does not matter anymore. So, you tell us when the SPP will be ready?”
When the APP admitted to lacking details about the SPP’s readiness, the bench stated, “Convey our displeasure to the PP because it appears that your instructions to seek time are to take the case away from this bench.”
Background of the Case:
The petitions involve allegations against various individuals:
- Shekhar Jagtap was accused of serving as an SPP without proper appointment in cases against businessman Sanjay Punamiya.
- Ex-IPS Sanjay Pandey, is alleged to have conspired to pressure Punamiya into making statements against Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
Mr. Pandey’s lawyer, Mihir Desai, argued that the allegations against Pandey are hearsay and lack substantial evidence and that the alleged incident occurred in November 2021, but Punamiya disclosed it only recently, despite having multiple opportunities earlier.
The court will hear further arguments, including those from Punamiya’s counsel, Rizwan Merchant, on January 20. This case underscores the judiciary’s insistence on efficient proceedings and its disapproval of delays caused by administrative lapses.
