Bharati Harish Dangre

From Bharatpedia, an open encyclopedia
Information red.svg
Scan the QR code to donate via UPI
Dear reader, We need your support to keep the flame of knowledge burning bright! Our hosting server bill is due on June 1st, and without your help, Bharatpedia faces the risk of shutdown. We've come a long way together in exploring and celebrating our rich heritage. Now, let's unite to ensure Bharatpedia continues to be a beacon of knowledge for generations to come. Every contribution, big or small, makes a difference. Together, let's preserve and share the essence of Bharat.

Thank you for being part of the Bharatpedia family!
Please scan the QR code on the right to donate.

0%

   

transparency: ₹0 raised out of ₹100,000 (0 supporter)



Bharati Harish Dangre
Judge of the Bombay High Court
Assumed office
5 June 2017
Personal details
Born (1968-05-10) 10 May 1968 (age 55)

Bharati Harish Dangre (born 10 May 1968) is a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra, India. Dangre has adjudicated in several significant cases concerning constitutional law, including the validity of affirmative action in the form of reservations for the Maratha caste in Maharashtra, the interpretation of child sexual abuse laws in India, and the implementation of the Goods and Service Tax in India.

Life[edit]

Dangre was educated and trained in the law in Nagpur, Maharashtra. She initially practiced law in Nagpur, and later in the Bombay High Court.[1] She was appointed as a government counsel in Nagpur, and represented the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and the Nagpur Improvement Trust.[1]

Judicial career[edit]

Dangre was appointed as a judge of the Bombay High Court on 5 June 2017.[1]

In June 2019, Dangre and another judge, Ranjit More, upheld the constitutionality of a politically-contentious legislation granting affirmative action to the Maratha caste in Maharashtra. Dangre and More directed the Maharashtra State Government to reduce the percentage of reservations granted to the Maratha caste from 16% to 12%.[2] The judgment was criticized on several grounds, including whether the affirmative action was needed for the Maratha caste, as well as for violating a previous order from the Supreme Court of India that places a limit on the maximum cumulative reservations at 50%, as the Maratha reservation, in addition to existing reservations, would exceed this limit.[3][4][5] The order was appealed to the Supreme Court of India, and on 9 September 2020, the Supreme Court expressed a preliminary opinion that the Bombay High Court was incorrect in upholding the legislation and prevented the Maharashtra government from implementing it at the moment. The case is still being heard.[6][7][8]

Dangre has ruled in a number of cases involving child sex abuse and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). in July 2020, Dangre held that in cases involving child sexual abuse as well as caste-related offences, POCSO would take precedence, allowing such cases to be tried in special POCSO courts.[9] This ruling established that POCSO has an overriding effect on other legislation.[10] In September 2020, Dangre held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in India did not apply to cases where acts constituting such abuse were committed without "sexual intent". The case concerned the removal of a child's clothes during a physical altercation.[11] In December 2020, Dangre held that a man who restrained a 17 year old girl by holding her arm, and made repeated romantic overtures to her despite her objections, including in person and via online messaging, had not committed offences under the POCSO Act. Dangre held that the man had "expressed his love," which was not, in her view, a violation of the Act.[12]

In February 2018, Dangre and another judge, S.C. Dharmadhikari, criticized the Goods and Service Tax introduced into India, stating, "the regime is not tax-friendly." They directed the Maharashtra state government and Union government to establish a system to redress taxpayers' grievances in relation to the tax. Their critique was widely reported.[13][14][15][16][17] The Government of India subsequently announced their intention to establish a grievance redressal mechanism.[18]

References[edit]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 "JUSTICE SMT. BHARATI DANGRE". Bombay High Court.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ↑ "Bombay High Court Confirms Maratha Quota, But Says 16% Not Justifiable". NDTV.com. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  3. ↑ Saigal, Sonam (27 June 2019). "Bombay High Court upholds reservation for Maratha community". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  4. ↑ "Why the Bombay HC Judgment on Maratha Reservation Is Inherently Flawed". The Wire. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  5. ↑ "Bombay high court upholds Maratha quota, caps it at 13%". Hindustan Times. 27 June 2019. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  6. ↑ Correspondent, Legal (11 September 2020). "Relaxation of 50% cap on reservation for Marathas in Maharashtra unwarranted, rules SC". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  7. ↑ Quint, The (21 September 2020). "Maratha Quota: Maha Govt Files Plea in SC for Review of Stay Order". TheQuint. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  8. ↑ author/lokmat-english-desk (1 October 2020). "Maratha morcha workers issue ultimatum to govt, call for Maharashtra Bandh on Oct 10 | english.lokmat.com". Lokmat English. Retrieved 6 October 2020. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  9. ↑ "If accused charged under POCSO, SC/ST Act, offences can be tried only by special POCSO court: Bombay HC". The Indian Express. 7 July 2020. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  10. ↑ PTI (6 July 2020). "POCSO Act has overriding effect on any other law: Bombay HC". Outlook India. Retrieved 6 October 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  11. ↑ "Pocso Act applies only when a child is harassed with sexual intent: Bombay HC". Hindustan Times. 12 September 2020. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  12. ↑ "Holding hand of minor to express love, inadvertent physical touch without sexual intent not assault under POCSO: HC". The Indian Express. 27 December 2020. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
  13. ↑ "Bombay High Court says GST not tax-friendly, tells government to put requisite mechanism in place - India News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 12 February 2018. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  14. ↑ Plumber, Mustafa (10 February 2018). "Bombay High Court tells Centre and Maha government to set up grievance mechanism for easy filing of GST tax". DNA India. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  15. ↑ PTI (12 February 2018). "GST not tax-friendly, put requisite mechanism in place: HC". Outlook India. Retrieved 6 October 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  16. ↑ "GST not a tax-friendly regime: HC". The Hindu. Special Correspondent. 10 February 2018. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 6 October 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  17. ↑ Sikarwar, Deepshikha. "GST regime not user-friendly, says Bombay High Court". The Economic Times. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  18. ↑ "Tax department to set up GST grievance redressal system". The Financial Express. 21 February 2018. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.bharatpedia.org/index.php?title=Bharati_Harish_Dangre&oldid=113756"