Nagpur has long been regarded as a legal hub for the Vidarbha region. Its judicial history includes numerous landmark rulings and high-profile cases that have had far-reaching implications well beyond Maharashtra.

Some of these matters were pursued by individuals and civil society groups, while others were initiated by public bodies, highlighting how Nagpur’s courts often serve as platforms for larger legal battles in India.

These cases were heard at the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench and district courts, influencing public discourse and legal precedents at the national level.

1. Shetkari Sanghatana vs State of Maharashtra (1997)

The cotton procurement crisis in the mid‑1990s hit Vidarbha farmers hard. Shetkari Sanghatana petitioned the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, asserting that the delayed payment of Minimum Support Price (MSP) caused grave financial stress on cultivators. Court records show procurement often lagged by several months, with payments frequently arriving well after the kharif season ended.

The Bench directed the state to submit detailed disbursement schedules, procurement records, and payment timelines. The court also ordered that interest on overdue amounts be paid to farmers. While the final decree did not prescribe stiff penalties, bureaucratic reports indicate the state reformed payment protocols.

A 2025 report from the same Bench revealed that officials responsible for delays faced service repercussions, including slight salary deductions tied to late payments, demonstrating the lasting influence of the ruling.

2. Dr. Anil Paturkar vs State of Maharashtra (1998)

Nagpur's civil rights community was stirred when a young Dalit man died in police custody. Dr. Anil Paturkar filed a PIL to demand a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry, following post‑mortem findings that suggested torture.

The Nagpur Bench emphatically rejected the local probe, citing procedural flaws and insufficient independence. It directed the immediate transfer of the matter to the CBI and mandated the submission of investigative steps within four weeks.

Forensic text experts testified during hearings, describing injuries inconsistent with routine detention procedures. Though outcomes were not widely published, court archives confirm the CBI submitted a full report.

Legal analysts often cite this case as precedent for judicial oversight of custodial deaths and its role in shaping future PIL filings in India.

3. Arun Gawli Trial Proceedings in Nagpur (2005)

The notorious gangster Arun Gawli stood accused of extortion and organised crime. To ensure security and impartiality, select trial sessions were shifted from Mumbai to Nagpur.

Court proceedings were conducted under Paramilitary and local police protection. Witnesses often testified with face coverings, citing threats.

Media coverage highlighted the logistical scale: suspects were flown in under guard, roads were sealed, and judges attended hearings in bulletproof vehicles. Excerpts from the charge sheet were read aloud in open court.

This logistical feat exemplified how Nagpur’s judiciary prioritised safe trial environments when public interest intersected with high‑risk defendants.

4. Dr. Narayan Mantri Medical Negligence Suit (2007)

A routine angioplasty at a major Nagpur private hospital ended in patient death. The deceased’s family filed a consumer lawsuit against Dr Narayan Mantri, alleging critical lapses in informed consent and procedural protocol. Detailed hospital records were produced in court, revealing incomplete pre‑operative disclosures.

The consumer forum awarded ₹35 lakh in damages, unprecedented for the region then. Legal experts note how the award included ₹10 lakh for mental agony, ₹15 lakh for loss of income, and ₹10 lakh in legal expenses.

The ruling included an in‑depth legal analysis on each element of medical negligence, giving it a permanent place in legal curricula and prompting hospitals across Maharashtra to revise consent forms and post‑procedure care checklists.

5. Prakash Ambedkar vs Nagpur Police Commissionerate (2010)

Civil liberties activists frequently clashed with police over preventive arrests. In 2010, Prakash Ambedkar challenged the Nagpur police for pre‑emptively detaining Dalit rally organisers under Section 151 of the CrPC.

Court filings revealed that dozens were detained days before rallies without arrest notices. The Bench asked senior officers to appear and provided transcripts of detentions. Police were ordered to justify each preventive action with written grounds.

The court ultimately ruled that non‑compliance with procedural safeguards violated Article 21 of the Constitution. Legal observers noted that this judicial emphasis on formalities became a reference in debates about civil protest rights across India.

6. Khapri Flyover Collapse PIL (2012)

The collapse of a Khapri flyover under construction led to the deaths of several labourers. Social activists petitioned the Nagpur Bench, demanding full accountability. Court‑ordered forensic and structural audit reports confirmed construction flaws.

The Bench directed contractors and the Public Works Department to submit affidavits detailing oversight procedures. Engineers testified about steel quality, cement slump values, and project supervision. Ultimately, the court mandated third‑party audits of ongoing flyovers in Maharashtra.

Prominent newspapers across India cited this ruling when reporting similar collapses in other states, reinforcing the need for independent project audits.

7. Akola Teacher Recruitment Scam Hearing (2015–2018)

In a corruption scandal spanning multiple Vidarbha districts, fake teaching credentials were used to secure Zilla Parishad jobs.

The court verified thousands of documents, revoked dubious appointments, and by 2018 had ordered the termination of more than 250 teachers. Audits exposed a network of middlemen and dishonest politicians behind the scam.

The Nagpur Bench’s long, transparent hearings provided legal interpretation of employment law and established that state appointments must follow strict qualification verification. As a result, the Maharashtra government introduced a statewide centralised database for teaching qualifications.

8. Maharashtra Wildlife Board vs MSRTC – Pench Corridor (2017)

Environmental groups petitioned the Nagpur Bench against MSRTC’s plan to build a depot within the Pench animal corridor. Court‑appointed environmental consultants submitted GPS‑mapped elephant and tiger movement trails.

The court issued a stay and asked the transport body to commission a fresh ecological‑impact report.

This judgment later appeared in environmental strategy papers and law journals as an example of integrated landscape‑based protection. It also prompted the inclusion of wildlife‑corridor assessments in development planning by both the state and Central governments.

9. Vijay Barse vs Nagpur Improvement Trust (2018)

Grassroots social reformer Vijay Barse, founder of Slum Soccer, received an eviction order from NIT over public land used for football coaching centres.

Court documents show Barse submitted letters from community stakeholders supporting Slum Soccer’s public‑interest work. The Bench stayed demolition, requiring NIT to reassess land use under welfare policy. Prominent sports figures submitted written affidavits in support.

National newspapers, including The Hindu and The Indian Express, widely reported this outcome. The ruling underscored legal protection for civic initiatives operating on civic land without formal authorisation.

10. Bhante Bodhi Dharma vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation (2022)

In 2022, the Municipal Corporation demolished a structure in a Dalit‑majority ward, prompting Bhante Bodhi Dharma to challenge selective enforcement. The petitioner argued that unauthorised constructions elsewhere remained untouched.

The court summoned demolition records and municipal notices, finding inconsistencies. It ordered the retention of the Buddha Vihar pending proof that other unauthorised buildings were also subject to similar action.

This triggered a discussion on caste bias in civic enforcement. Dalit rights organisations and national media reported on this legal check on municipal demolition practices.

These ten cases highlight the scope and seriousness of legal battles emerging from Nagpur’s courts, particularly those that shaped public discourse, challenged state actions, or pushed the boundaries of existing legal frameworks.

Some of these cases originated in other districts of Vidarbha but found a platform in Nagpur’s judicial corridors due to its administrative jurisdiction and legal standing.

From environmental protection and public infrastructure to civil liberties and medical accountability, the diversity of issues reflects how the Nagpur Bench has contributed to shaping law in both local and national contexts. These cases demonstrate the enduring relevance of Vidarbha in India’s broader legal landscape.