SadieHagelthorn at 13:18, 22 March 2026

2026-03-22T13:18:16Z

New page

{{short description|Indian judge}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2020}}
{{Infobox officeholder
| name = Bharati Harish Dangre, J.
| termend2 =
| death_date =
| birth_place =
| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|df=yes|1968|05|10}}
| successor2 =
| predecessor2 =
| appointer2 =
| nominator2 =
| termstart2 = 5 June 2017
| image =
| office2 = Judge of the [[Bombay High Court]]
| successor =
| predecessor =
| appointer =
| nominator =
| termstart =
| caption =
| imagesize =
| death_place =
}}
'''Bharati Harish Dangre''' (born 10 May 1968) is a judge of the [[Bombay High Court]] in [[Maharashtra]], [[India]]. Dangre has adjudicated on several significant cases concerning constitutional law, including the validity of [[affirmative action]] in the form of [[Reservation in India|reservations]] for the [[Maratha (caste)|Maratha]] caste in Maharashtra, the interpretation of [[child sexual abuse laws in India]], and the implementation of the [[Goods and Services Tax (India)|Goods and Services Tax]] in India.

== Life ==
Dangre was educated and trained in the law in [[Nagpur]], [[Maharashtra]]. She initially practiced law in Nagpur, and later in the Bombay High Court.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=JUSTICE SMT. BHARATI DANGRE|url=https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/processjshowReq.php?bhcpar=bmlkPTQ0|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930221815/https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/processjshowReq.php?bhcpar=bmlkPTQ0 |archive-date=30 September 2020 |access-date=|website=Bombay High Court}}</ref> She was appointed a government counsel in Nagpur, and represented the [[Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation]] and the [[Nagpur Improvement Trust]].<ref name=":0" />

== Judicial career ==
Dangre was appointed a judge of the Bombay High Court on 5 June 2017.<ref name=":0" />

In June 2019, Dangre and another judge, Ranjit More, upheld the constitutionality of a politically contentious legislation granting affirmative action to the [[Maratha (caste)|Maratha caste]] in Maharashtra. Dangre and More directed the Maharashtra State Government to reduce the percentage of reservations granted to the Maratha caste from 16% to 12%.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Bombay High Court Confirms Maratha Quota, But Says 16% Not Justifiable|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bombay-high-court-confirms-16-per-cent-quota-for-marathas-in-jobs-educational-institutions-in-mahara-2060191|access-date=2020-10-06|website=NDTV.com}}</ref> The judgment was criticized on several grounds, including whether the affirmative action was needed for the Maratha caste, as well as for violating a previous order from the [[Supreme Court of India]] that places a limit on the maximum cumulative reservations at 50%, as the Maratha reservation, in addition to existing reservations, would exceed this limit.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Saigal|first=Sonam|date=2019-06-27|title=Bombay High Court upholds reservation for Maratha community|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/bombay-high-court-upholds-reservation-for-maratha-community/article28180208.ece|access-date=2020-10-06|issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Why the Bombay HC Judgment on Maratha Reservation Is Inherently Flawed|url=https://thewire.in/law/bombay-high-court-maratha-reservation|access-date=2020-10-06|website=The Wire}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-06-27|title=Bombay high court upholds Maratha quota, caps it at 13%|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bombay-high-court-upholds-maratha-reservation-given-by-maharashtra-government/story-BhyHrWV17HTemHnp6dotWN.html|access-date=2020-10-06|website=Hindustan Times|language=en}}</ref> The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which issued a preliminary opinion on September 9, 2020, stating that the Bombay High Court was mistaken in maintaining the Act and preventing the Maharashtra government from implementing it at the time. The case is still being heard.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Correspondent|first=Legal|date=2020-09-11|title=Relaxation of 50% cap on reservation for Marathas in Maharashtra unwarranted, rules SC|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/relaxation-of-50-cap-on-reservation-for-marathas-in-maharashtra-unwarranted-rules-sc/article32576850.ece|access-date=2020-10-06|issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-09-21|title=Maratha Quota: Maha Govt Files Plea in SC for Review of Stay Order|url=https://www.thequint.com/news/india/maratha-quota-reservation-maharashtra-government-files-plea-in-sc-for-review-of-stay-order|access-date=2020-10-06|website=TheQuint|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=author/lokmat-english-desk|date=2020-10-01|title=Maratha morcha workers issue ultimatum to govt, call for Maharashtra Bandh on Oct 10 {{!}} english.lokmat.com|url=https://english.lokmat.com/maharashtra/maratha-morcha-workers-issue-ultimatum-to-govt-call-for-maharashtra-bandh-on-oct-10/|access-date=2020-10-06|website=Lokmat English|language=en}}</ref>

Dangre has ruled in a number of cases involving child sex abuse and the [[Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act]] (POCSO). In July 2020, Dangre held that in cases involving child sexual abuse as well as [[Caste-related violence in India|caste-related offences]], [[POCSO]] would take precedence, allowing such cases to be tried in special [[POCSO]] courts.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-07-07|title=If accused charged under POCSO, SC/ST Act, offences can be tried only by special POCSO court: Bombay HC|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/if-accused-charged-under-pocso-sc-st-act-offences-can-be-tried-only-by-special-pocso-court-bombay-hc-6493424/|access-date=2020-10-06|website=The Indian Express|language=en}}</ref> This ruling established that POCSO has an overriding effect on other legislation.<ref>{{Cite web|last=PTI|date=6 July 2020|title=POCSO Act has overriding effect on any other law: Bombay HC|url=https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/pocso-act-has-overriding-effect-on-any-other-law-bombay-hc/1887784|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201009045207/https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/pocso-act-has-overriding-effect-on-any-other-law-bombay-hc/1887784 |archive-date=9 October 2020 |access-date=2020-10-06|website=Outlook India}}</ref> In September 2020, Dangre held that the [[Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act]] in India 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.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-09-12|title=Pocso Act applies only when a child is harassed with sexual intent: Bombay HC|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/pocso-act-applies-only-when-a-child-is-harassed-with-sexual-intent-bombay-hc/story-JK6ig6GAMtio53pgo2IhAI.html|access-date=2020-10-06|website=Hindustan Times|language=en}}</ref> In December 2020, 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. Dangre held that the man had "expressed his love," which was not, in her view, a violation of the Act.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-12-27|title=Holding hand of minor to express love, inadvertent physical touch without sexual intent not assault under POCSO: HC|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/holding-hand-of-minor-to-express-love-inadvertent-physical-touch-without-sexual-intent-not-assault-under-pocso-hc-7122358/|access-date=2020-12-28|website=The Indian Express|language=en}}</ref>

In February 2018, Dangre and another judge, S.C. Dharmadhikari, criticized the [[Goods and Services Tax (India)|Goods and Services Tax]] introduced into India, stating, "the regime is not tax-friendly." They directed the Maharashtra state government and Union government to establish a system to redress taxpayers' grievances in relation to the tax. Their critique was widely reported.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-02-12|title=Bombay High Court says GST not tax-friendly, tells government to put requisite mechanism in place|url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/bombay-high-court-says-gst-not-tax-friendly-tells-government-to-put-requisite-mechanism-in-place-4347895.html|access-date=2020-10-06|website=Firstpost}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Plumber|first=Mustafa|date=2018-02-10|title=Bombay High Court tells Centre and Maha government to set up grievance mechanism for easy filing of GST tax|url=https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-bombay-high-court-tells-centre-and-maha-government-to-set-up-grievance-mechanism-for-easy-filing-of-gst-tax-2583091|access-date=2020-10-06|website=DNA India|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=PTI|date=12 February 2018|title=GST not tax-friendly, put requisite mechanism in place: HC|url=https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/gst-not-taxfriendly-put-requisite-mechanism-in-place-hc/1251882|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-06|website=Outlook India}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|date=2018-02-10|title=GST not a tax-friendly regime: HC|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/gst-not-a-tax-friendly-regime-hc/article22717909.ece|access-date=2020-10-06|issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Sikarwar|first=Deepshikha|title=GST regime not user-friendly, says Bombay High Court|work=The Economic Times|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/gst-regime-not-user-friendly-says-bombay-high-court/articleshow/62858043.cms|access-date=2020-10-06}}</ref> The Government of India subsequently announced their intention to establish a grievance redressal mechanism.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-02-21|title=Tax department to set up GST grievance redressal system|url=https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/tax-department-to-set-up-gst-grievance-redressal-system/1073431/|access-date=2020-10-06|website=The Financial Express|language=en-US}}</ref>

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dangre, Bharati Harish}}
[[Category:1968 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:20th-century Indian lawyers]]
[[Category:20th-century Indian women lawyers]]
[[Category:21st-century Indian judges]]
[[Category:21st-century Indian women judges]]
[[Category:Judges of the Bombay High Court]]
[[Category:People from Maharashtra]]

Bharati Harish Dangre - Revision history

SadieHagelthorn at 13:18, 22 March 2026