Though even after 75 years of Independence the representation of women both at the Bar and the Bench has been meagre, we have numerous examples of women who have fought all odds to emerge as a winner in this male-dominated profession and who have made a name for themselves. This column is an ode to such fighters.
JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE
Born on 10th May, 1968, Justice Bharati Dangre obtained her degree in LL.B. from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law at Nagpur in the year 1990. Thereafter, she completed her LL.M. in Commercial Laws in the year 1992.
Justice Dangre initially practised at the District Court, Nagpur, and later at the High Court of Bombay. She extensively handled service matters before the Service Tribunals. She was appointed as an Assistant Government Pleader in the year 2000, and as an Additional Government Pleader in 2007. On 26th June, 2014, she was appointed as the Government Pleader at the Nagpur Bench. As a Government Counsel, she dealt with civil and criminal matters, as also various constitutional issues, and several Public Interest Litigations.
Justice Dangre was a Standing Counsel for the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur, and represented the Nagpur Improvement Trust and the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation. She was also a Special Counsel for the Forest Department. Besides, she worked as a Contributory Lecturer in Law and Management Studies. She was also a Trained Mediator.
On 5th June, 2017, Justice Dangre was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court.
Notable Judgments
Justice Dangre has ruled in a number of cases involving child sexual abuse and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
In July 2020, Justice Dangre held that in cases involving child sexual abuse and caste-related offences, POCSO would take precedence, allowing such cases to be tried in special POCSO courts. This ruling established that POCSO has an overriding effect on other legislations.
In September 2020, Justice Dangre held that POCSO 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.
In December 2020, Justice 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. The Court held that the man had “expressed his love”, which was not a violation of the Act.
In February 2024, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Bharati Dangre, and Justice Arif S. Doctor, observed that when a Magistrate was conducting a mandatory inquiry under section 202(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code before summoning an accused who lives outside the court’s jurisdiction, the Magistrate should not solely rely on the allegations in the private complaint, as that could be used as an instrument of vendetta.
In March 2024, Justice Dangre held that a suit for infringement of trademark could be filed at the principal office of the company, even if the registered office was located elsewhere.
In another case, in March 2024, Justice Dangre held that claims that are clearly time-barred must not be entertained, as doing so would perpetuate injustice rather than serving justice.
Purnima Arora LL.B (Gold Medalist), Advocate, Delhi High Court
