Bombay High Court declines urgent mentioning of PIL for directions against Nawab Malik making comments against Sameer Wankhede and NCB

  • Thyagarajan Narendran
  • 03:34 PM, 27 Oct 2021

Read Time: 04 minutes

The Bombay High Court today refused to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against Nawab Malik, a cabinet minister of Maharashtra, asking the court to issue directions restraining him from commenting on Sameer Wankhede, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and any other institution with the intention of demoralizing the agency.

The PIL has been filed by one Kausar Ali who claims to be a businessman-cum-Maulana, he and also claims that he is involved in rehabilitating drug addicts.

The petition states that NCB has taken necessary steps time and again to curtail drug consumption in India.

According to the petition, Nawab Malik’s son-in-law Sameer Khan was arrested under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and Sameer Wankhede was the officer in-charge of this investigation. The petition claims that Sameer Khan was subsequently released on bail.

According to the petition, it is difficult to raise any doubts with respect to Sameer Wankhede's integrity.

It is said that it is a well known fact that Aryan Khan was allegedly involved in an NDPS case and was arrested by the NCB on October 2 and his bail application was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, and an allegation is made that Nawab Malik owing to his personal enmity with Sameer Wankhede is making untoward statements against him.

It stated that if Malik had any grievances against Wankhede he should have initiated appropriate legal proceedings, however, he is tweeting about Wankhede and his family without any justification.

According to the petition, Malik’s tweets will not only demoralise Wankhede and his family but will also ensure that NCB’s credibility is lost.

The PIL was mentioned before a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice MS Karnik. The court while refusing to hear the case on an urgent basis asked the petitioner to move the vacation bench.

However, it refused to grant liberty to the petition move the vacation bench justifying it by saying that it would encroach on the jurisdiction of another bench, thereby, asking the petitioner to let the matter come up before an appropriate bench.

Cause Title : Kausar Ali vs Union of India and Ors