Kamal Ghorui
MUMBAI: A sessions court recently rejected the discharge plea of city mayor Ritu Tawde in a case involving the alleged assault of school teachers in 2016. The order paves the way for the accused to stand trial for offences including the use of criminal force to deter public servants from their duties. “The two teachers or victims have categorically named the above applicant to be the person who beat them by hands inside the school. Even other witnesses took the name of the applicant being assaulter on the date of incident. This is more than sufficient to frame charge against the applicant (Tawde),” judge YP Manathkar said. Tawde, BJP Corporator has been serving as mayor since Feb, 2026. The order was pronounced on March 12. The prosecution’s relates to an incident on July 29, 2016 at an Urdu medium municipal school in Shastri Nagar, Vakola, Santacruz (E). The dispute reportedly erupted following the sudden transfer of a teacher, Shahin Khan, to a different facility in BKC. It was alleged that Shahin was unhappy with the transfer.
Poll
Does political affiliation influence the public’s perception of this case?
The seven accused of the crime including Tawde allegedly started a quarrel with the Headmistress and other teachers of the on the grounds Shahin was transferred despite suffering from cancer. According to the FIR filed by headmistress Sharifa Momin, the confrontation escalated when the accused used criminal force and slapped two male teachers, Mohd Yakub Rahid and Nadim Ahmed Shaikh.During the proceedings, the defence argued that Tawde’s presence at the site was merely coincidental and that her political status as a BJP corporator was being exploited for publicity. The advocate for the accused also pointed to a 13-day delay in registering the FIR, suggesting the allegations were an afterthought born of political vendetta. The defence further submitted that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, specifically criminal intent or mens rea, were entirely absent from the record.The prosecution countered these claims by pointing to the statements of seven witnesses including eye witnesses. The prosecution argued that the two teachers who were physically assaulted had specifically named Tawde as the primary aggressor. The prosecution submitted that such conduct within an educational institution, where teachers are expected to set an example for students, must be viewed with the utmost seriousness.The judge observed that the court’s role at this stage is not to conduct a “mini-trial” or weigh evidence for a final conviction, but rather to determine if a prima facie case exists. “The Judge has the power to sift and weigh the evidence, but only for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.” The judge further noted that the statements provided by the victims and other witnesses directly implicated the applicant. The order clarified that at the stage of framing charges, the court should not examine the reliability or probative value of the statements. “If two views are equally possible and the evidence gives rise to grave suspicion (but not just suspicion), the judge is fully justified in framing the charge,” the order noted.
