High court questions Mumbai top cop on inaction on couple’s threat complaint due to inter-caste marriage

The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday pulled up Mumbai Police commissioner Hemant Nagrale for not taking action against people who had forcefully taken away a woman from their community to Gujarat as she had entered into an inter-caste marriage

The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday pulled up Mumbai Police commissioner Hemant Nagrale for not taking action against people who had forcefully taken away a woman from their community to Gujarat as she had entered into an inter-caste marriage. Nagrale, who appeared before the court, through video conference assured the court that the wrongdoers would be punished and round-the-clock protection would be provided to the couple, her in-laws and witnesses to the marriage, as they had received death threats from the community members. The court observed that if such things were happening in cities, it could not imagine what must be happening in the interiors.

Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday pulled up Mumbai Police commissioner Hemant Nagrale for not taking action against people who had forcefully taken away a woman from their community to Gujarat as she had entered into an inter-caste marriage. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

A division bench of justice SJ Kathawalla and justice Abhay Ahuja, while hearing the petition of Shivani Balsara and others, was informed by advocate Pranav Badheka that the woman belonged to the Ahir community from Chaubri taluka in Bhachau, Gujarat, and the second petitioner was her first husband and was a Brahmin. The court was informed that after the duo got married the Ahir community, led by the sarpanch and head, had opposed the inter-caste marriage, gave death threats to the couple and also assaulted the husband’s father.

The petition stated that though a complaint was lodged with Mumbai Police in August, no action was taken, hence the petition was filed seeking police protection for the couple as well as the husband’s family and witnesses. The petition also sought orders restraining Bhachau police or any other police of Gujarat from summoning the couple or the husband’s family.

The incident started in February 2020 when Shivani and Yash eloped from their village and came to Mumbai, however, Shivani was taken back by her family in March. She was forced to file a complaint against Yash. Yash was arrested and spent 4.5 months in jail. In December 2020 when Shivani returned to Mumbai with her family, she married Yash.

Yash received threat calls and he lodged a complaint with the Powai police. On December 29, some members of the community convinced Shivani to go back to the village to end the unrest due to the inter-caste marriage, to which she agreed.

However, at the village, she was tortured, threatened, assaulted and forced to file a false complaint against Yash with Bhachau police. In April 2021, Shivani managed to speak to Yash on the phone and narrated her plight. Yash filed a police complaint in Powai and a habeas corpus petition in HC. However, in the HC hearing held through VC, Shivani who was under duress by her father, brother and other community members told the court that she was in Gujarat of her own volition and did not want to be with Yash.

In May itself Shivani was forced to marry a man from the Ahir community. The man raped and assaulted her when she objected. Shivani managed to flee from the village and reached Mumbai in August and lodged a complaint with the Powai police. However, no action was taken and hence she and Yash filed the petition.

When the petition came up for hearing on Thursday morning, when the bench was informed of the inaction by the police on the August complaint the court directed the Mumbai Police commissioner Nagrale to be present in the afternoon.

The court asked Nagrale, “With great difficulty, she came back to Mumbai. What if anything happens to her husband? Why is no action taken when there is a complaint by a woman? The father of the boy was beaten up when her second husband came. This complaint may not be by a lawyer, but it is by a citizen.”

Nagrale responded stating that the episode had several stories, first marriage, then second marriage and the second husband’s complaint. However, when the court sought to know as to why there was no sensitivity to such an issue, Nagrale assured that immediate action would be taken.

The court observed, “If such a thing is happening in cities then we cannot imagine what must be happening in the interiors. And why was there no protection to the girl when she complained? We want action against wrongdoers, not just security. Any person cannot come to Mumbai and threaten a woman. We need to take action.”

Nagrale then assured the bench that there was no political pressure and officers would be deputed for protection. Thereafter, the court asked the investigating officer to conduct a thorough probe and directed the respondent sarpanch, head of community and others to file affidavits, and posted a hearing of the petition to Saturday.