A sessions court has rejected the discharge plea of city mayor Ritu Tawde in a 2016 case involving the alleged assault of school teachers, clearing the way for her to stand trial on charges including the use of criminal force to deter public servants from performing their duties. The order was pronounced on March 12, according to a report by TOI.
“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, a BJP corporator who has been serving as mayor since February 2026, had sought discharge on grounds including lack of criminal intent and alleged political targeting, the report said.
According to the FIR filed by headmistress Sharifa Momin, seven accused, including Tawde, allegedly started a quarrel with the headmistress and other teachers on the grounds that Shahin was transferred despite suffering from cancer. The confrontation escalated when the accused allegedly used criminal force and slapped two male teachers, Mohd Yakub Rahid and Nadim Ahmed Shaikh.
It further contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, including criminal intent or mens rea, were absent.
“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 order further clarified that the reliability or probative value of statements should not be examined at the stage of framing charges. “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.
“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, a BJP corporator who has been serving as mayor since February 2026, had sought discharge on grounds including lack of criminal intent and alleged political targeting, the report said.
Incident linked to teacher transfer dispute
The prosecution case relates to an incident on July 29, 2016 at an Urdu medium municipal school in Shastri Nagar, Vakola, Santacruz (East). The dispute reportedly arose after the sudden transfer of a teacher, Shahin Khan, to another facility in BKC. It was alleged that she was unhappy with the transfer.According to the FIR filed by headmistress Sharifa Momin, seven accused, including Tawde, allegedly started a quarrel with the headmistress and other teachers on the grounds that Shahin was transferred despite suffering from cancer. The confrontation escalated when the accused allegedly used criminal force and slapped two male teachers, Mohd Yakub Rahid and Nadim Ahmed Shaikh.
Defence cites delay in FIR and lack of intent
During proceedings, the defence argued that Tawde’s presence at the scene was coincidental and that her political position was being used for publicity. The defence also highlighted a 13-day delay in registering the FIR, suggesting the allegations were an afterthought motivated by political vendetta.It further contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, including criminal intent or mens rea, were absent.
Prosecution relies on eyewitness accounts
The prosecution countered by citing statements from seven witnesses, including eyewitnesses, and said the two assaulted teachers had specifically named Tawde as the primary aggressor. It argued that such conduct within an educational institution, where teachers are expected to set an example, must be treated with seriousness.Court notes limited scope at charge stage
The judge observed that the court’s role at this stage was not to conduct a “mini-trial” or assess evidence for conviction but to determine whether a prima facie case existed.“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 order further clarified that the reliability or probative value of statements should not be examined at the stage of framing charges. “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.
