The Bombay High Court recently expressed serious concerns over the State government’s prolonged delay in responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2011. The PIL challenges the constitutional validity of the Bombay Habitual Offenders Act, 1959, and raises critical issues regarding the treatment of denotified tribes, who continue to be categorized as 'criminal tribes.'
During the hearing, Justice Karnik strongly criticized the government’s failure to submit a response despite multiple opportunities given by the Court.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Declares Resigning Judges Eligible for Pension Benefits
“A very important issue is raised in this and you are not filing a reply. Two orders have been passed where we gave you the last chance. These are not the matters where you should dilly-dally,” Justice Karnik remarked.
The petition highlights that members of certain denotified tribes are still being arrested under outdated and discriminatory legal provisions. It further questions the effectiveness of settlement plans for these communities, arguing that instead of improving their living conditions, lands allotted to them are being sold to builders.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel pointed out that in previous proceedings, the State had assured the Court that an affidavit addressing these concerns would be filed. However, this commitment has not been fulfilled. The State counsel, in response, stated that essential documents related to settlement plans were missing, and therefore, sought an additional two weeks to file the affidavit.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, while noting the prolonged pendency of the case since 2011, emphasized the responsibility of the State to act efficiently in legal matters.
“You are a modern welfare state; you should be a modern litigant also... driving people to courts,” CJ Aradhe stated.
Acknowledging the request, the Court granted the State an additional two weeks to submit the affidavit. However, it issued a strict warning that failure to comply would result in an appropriate judicial order being passed against the State.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty for Unauthorized Audio Recording of Court Proceedings
“It is made clear that in case the affidavit is not filed on or before the next date of hearing, this Court shall be constrained to pass an appropriate order.”
In addition, the Court also directed the Union of India to file its response within the same two-week period.
Case title: Prof. Retd. Motiraj Rathod vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors (PIL/78/2011)
