The Bombay High Court on Thursday pulled up the Maharashtra government for abruptly removing Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Pradip Gharat from the high-profile case involving the alleged abetment of suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi, a 26-year-old postgraduate medical student, without citing any reasons in the official order. The court directed the state to file an affidavit justifying its decision.
A division bench comprising Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice M.M. Sathaye was hearing a petition filed by Abeda Tadvi, the mother of the deceased, challenging the state’s March 7 notification that removed Gharat from the case. The court took serious note of the fact that the state had failed to explain its action, remarking, “You have simpliciter withdrawn him. The law requires you to supply reasons. Now, reasons cannot be assigned after the decision is taken.”
Dr Payal Tadvi, who belonged to the Tadvi Bhil community — an Adivasi Muslim group — died by suicide on May 22, 2019, allegedly due to caste-based harassment by three senior colleagues at Mumbai’s Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital. The accused — Dr Hema Ahuja, Dr Bhakti Meher, and Dr Ankita Khandelwal — were arrested under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, and later released on bail. The trial has yet to begin.
In November 2024, while serving as SPP, Gharat filed an application seeking to add Dr Yi Ching Ling Chung Chiang, the then head of the obstetrics and gynaecology department, as a co-accused for allegedly failing to act on repeated complaints made by Payal and her family. This application, supported by the college’s anti-ragging committee report and earlier family complaints, was allowed by a special court on February 28, 2025.
However, within a week, the state government removed Gharat and appointed advocate Mahesh Manohar Mule in his place — a move not explained in the official order and not communicated to the victim’s family, prompting the current legal challenge.
During Thursday’s hearing, the bench questioned the rationale behind the sudden replacement. “The complainant has confidence in this special public prosecutor. Why disturb the situation?” the court asked.
Additional Public Prosecutor Shreekant Gavand, representing the state, claimed that Gharat had been functioning independently and failed to coordinate with the investigating officer. He also cited Rule 4(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which allows removal of a special public prosecutor for failure to conduct a case with due care — provided that reasons are recorded.
But the court noted that no such reasons had been recorded in the official order. “You cannot assign reasons now that the action has already been taken,” the bench said.
The state government has now been directed to file an affidavit clarifying its decision and respond to the petition filed by Dr Tadvi’s mother. The matter will be heard next after the affidavit is submitted.
