Bombay HC questions Govt over Prosecutor Removal in Payal Tadvi Suicide Case

Medical Dialogues had previously reported that Dr Ching Ling Yi, the former head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Charitable Hospital, has approached the Bombay High Court, contesting her recent inclusion as an accused in the Payal Tadvi suicide case. Meanwhile, Payal Tadvi’s mother, Abeda Tadvi, has filed a plea in the Sessions Court, urging authorities to take Dr Ling into custody.

Also Read: Payal Tadvi Suicide Case: Former HOD Gynaecologist challenges Trial Court order

Dr. Payal Tadvi, a 26-year-old postgraduate medical student from the Tadvi Bhil community — an Adivasi Muslim group — died by suicide on May 22, 2019. Her death followed alleged caste-based harassment by three senior colleagues: Dr. Hema Ahuja, Dr. Bhakti Meher, and Dr. Ankita Khandelwal at BYL Nair Hospital, Mumbai. All three were arrested under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act but were later released on bail. The trial in the case has yet to begin.

In November 2024, while serving as the special public prosecutor, Pradip Gharat filed an application to implead Dr Yi Ching Ling Chung Chiang — the then head of the obstetrics and gynaecology department — as a co-accused. The application was based on reports from the college’s anti-ragging committee and earlier complaints by Dr Payal’s family, alleging that Dr Chung Chiang failed to act on repeated harassment complaints. A special court approved this application on February 28, 2025.

However, just a week later, the Maharashtra government removed Gharat from the case, replacing him with advocate Mahesh Manohar Mule. The removal notification did not mention any reasons, nor was the decision communicated to the victim’s family, prompting Dr Tadvi’s mother, Abeda Tadvi, to challenge the government’s action before the High Court.

During Thursday’s hearing, the bench questioned the rationale behind the government’s move, asking why the situation was being disturbed when the complainant had confidence in this special public prosecutor.

Also Read: Dr Payal Tadvi Suicide Case: 3 doctors discharge pleas rejected

According to the Hindustan Times, responding on behalf of the state, additional public prosecutor Shreekant Gavand said Gharat had allegedly been acting independently without consulting the investigating officer or keeping them informed of court proceedings. “He took the decision of impleading the new accused on his own,” Gavand said.

He cited Rule 4(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which allows the state to denotify a special public prosecutor if due care is not observed, provided that reasons are recorded.

But the bench noted that no such reasons were mentioned in the official order removing Gharat. “You have simpliciter withdrawn him. The law requires you to supply reasons. Now, reasons cannot be assigned after the decision is taken,” the court observed, reports the Hindustan Times.

In light of these developments, the High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to file an affidavit detailing the rationale behind the removal of Gharat and addressing the concerns raised in the petition by Abeda Tadvi.