Justice SS Shinde- Bird's Eye View of Judgements of Bombay HC Judge
         Date: 02-Mar-2021

Justice SS Shinde- Bird's Eye View of Judgements of Bombay HC Judge 

Justice SS Shinde- Bird's
After a mere glance at the oscillating stand taken by Justice S S Shinde in a few judicial proceedings, it seems Whistle Blower Nationalist wondered, what prompted Justice Shinde to hold a biased view and delay deliverance of justice in many cases, and he took it upon himself to unearth, dig, and make sense of the seemingly disjoint, but ideologically connected stance that Justice S S Shinde held and the matter presented by him before the general public is truly worthy of analysis.

The law is to administered without any discrimination taking into account only the facts of the case, evidences submitted; there is no room for personal agenda, mere conjectures in dictating any kind of legal proceedings, such is the sanctity upon which the entire Judiciary rests upon. Well, when it comes to involvement of personal interest of any presiding officer in a legal proceeding before him, Section 479 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, comes to the rescue stating, “Case in which Judge or Magistrate is personally interested: No Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from his Court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself.” This Section is inspired by one of the principles of natural justice, i.e., Nemo judex in causa sua which means no one should be a judge in his own case.

Well, with evolving times, there comes a need to check and reaffirm whether the provided checks and balances are enough to ensure fair and just legal proceedings; mere recusal of judges from cases, seems inadequate as that too has no codes stipulated! A framework needs to be drawn in this account to bring accountability into judiciary so that recusal is neither a weapon that an advocate easily wields nor a feeble recourse without any guiding principles behind it to rely upon when the presiding officer is biased. A few sensational cases handled by Justice Shinde shed some light into need for more stringent measures in place for personal ideological or otherwise interest in holding orders, delays in passing orders, and gross malpractice practised by presiding officers in judiciary, as personal interest has taken a new meaning in present times, largely ideological interests of presiding officers too seem to be playing a role in major rulings.

Let us first analyse the Arnab Goswami’s case as elucidated by Whistle Blower Nationalist, wherein Honourable Justices Rizwan Chagla and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the FIRs filed against Arnab and held no coercive steps shall be taken against the him vis-à-vis the two FIRs admitted for hearing before them… However, the Bombay High Court under Justice S S Shinde while hearing the petition of Arnab & ARG Outlier against the Mumbai police trying to implicate them in Oct 2020, made a statement that Mumbai police are the best in the world. This was made during the hearing of Sunaina Holey arrest for her tweet alleging it to be offensive of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. In this case, Justice S S Shinde while praising Maharashtra Police to be next in line to Scotland Yard when it comes to their efficacy, had urged Holey to cooperate with the police for investigation’s cause. Justice S S Shinde bench took a similar stance and denied bail to Arnab Goswami in his arrest in a 2-year-old closed case of Anvay Naik abetment to suicide. However, when the Apex Court was approached for relief as Bombay High Court held an unimaginably biased stand and refused bail, Justices Chandrachud and Indira aptly set aside Justice S S Shinde’s judgment stating "criminal law cannot be a tool for selective harassment".

In Justice Shinde’s orders and rulings, a whiff of the same selective harassment subtly supported at the behest of motivated politicians can be sensed. A few more examples which help general public to arrive at a definite picture of some unimaginable stances taken by Justice S S Shinde are - him holding, "Humanity is of utmost importance, everything else is subsequent", while hearing plea by Bhima Koregaon accused Varavara Rao! It seems for Justice S S Shinde, upholding of questionable Human and other Rights granted to conspirators, organised criminals is of more importance than granting of lawful remedies that genuine cases warrant for (Arnab and Sunaina are targets of such bias)! Justice S S Shinde, his bias, and the cases relevant, are discussed and analysed brilliantly by Whistle Blower Nationalist in his Twitter handle at thread WhistleBlowerNationalist on Twitter: "Hon'ble Rizwan Chagla & Hon'ble Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the FIRs filed against Arnab Goswami in June which is posted verbatim here below. The observations and parallels drawn by him are truly remarkable. The sanctity of the original analysis by Whistle Blower Nationalist is maintained with all due credits to the handle. The above paras are only in the nature of connecting the dots, before the reader embarks upon a detailed study of the case.

The link of the thread is https://twitter.com/WhistleBlowerN8/status/1355596668909936640?s=20 

Hon'ble Rizwan Chagla & Hon'ble Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the FIRs filed against Arnab Goswami in June

Hon'ble SS Shinde was hearing the petition of Arnab & ARG Outlier against the Mumbai police trying to implicate them in Oct 2020. During this time, he made a statement that Mumbai police are the best in the world. This was made during the hearing of Sunaina Holey arrest for tweet

Hon'ble SS Shinde bench denies bail to Arnab Goswami in the arrest in 2 year old closed case of Anvay Naik abetment to suicide case. See some the hon'ble judge comments

Hon'ble Chandrachud and Hon'be Indira set aside Hon'ble Shinde judgment saying that "criminal law cannot be a tool for selective harassment"

More damningly, the SC made the observation that the HC failed to exercise its judicial mind in the case

In Varavara rao case, Hon'ble Shinde made the observation that personal liberty is of utmost importance and all else is secondary. So the personal liberty in Arnab judgment is applied to Varavara rao?

Hon'ble Shinde, Pitale bench makes the observation that medical ground could be used for bail in Varavara. Around same time Bobde has said that if death is imminent, bail makes no difference.

Hon'ble Shinde said he does not look at TV or read news reports as he could be influenced by them. At the same time, he refuses Arnab's bail hearing saying he got 300 messages Who sent him 300 messages when he does not watch TV or twitter?

Hon'ble Salve had asked Justice Chandrachud if heavens will fall if Arnab is granted bail. Same words were used by SS Shinde in Eknath Khadse case (Eknath is part of the MVA that is ruling Maharashtra)

SS Shinde is hearing the following cases against MVA government:

1. TRP 'supposed scam' case against Republic

2. Arnab FIR quashing in the Anvay Naik case

3. Hansa TRP Case transfer to CBI

4. Same as 3 by Republic

5. Sameet Thakkar tweet

6. Kangana Tweet

7. Sunaina holey tweet case

8. Plea by Asifa begum (mother of Khwaja Yunus) questioning reinstatement of Sachin Vaze

9. Rhea bail case

10. Rhea FIR against Sushant family case

11. Eknath Khadse case

12. Varavara rao bail case

Hon'ble Shinde in FIR quashing case of Sushant Sisters

- Judgment reserved on 7-January and announced on 15-Feb after 5 weeks. 43 page judgment fails to quash FIR against one of the sisters, thereby delaying process further

Atleast he passed orders,so this can be challenged in SC

Hon'ble PD Naik - grants transit bail in 1 day to Tandav crew - grants transit bail for 3 weeks to Nikita while Shantanu got bail for 10 days. Both are in cases of non-bailable offences

Hon'ble PD naik in Partho bail plea

- Jan 22 adjourns to Jan 25

- Jan 25 adj to Feb 2 as chargesheet not attached

- Feb 2 adj to Feb 9 as SPP hirey requests time

- Feb 9 adj to Feb 15 as plea in SC

Partho case - 2 chargesheets filed, case of cheating with no complainant

Why so many days reserved judgment for Partho while bail in 1 day to Tandav and 1 day to Nikita by Hon'ble PD Naik