The Gujarat High Court last week dismissed a plea seeking a direction to restrain websites from publishing a non-reportable judgment..The petitioner, one Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave, had approached the High Court against judgment search website Indiankanoon.org, and Google, for publishing a non-reportable judgment in a criminal case against him..Dave was charged in 2001 of offences under Sections 34, 120B, 201, 302, 364, 404 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2004, he was acquitted by the trial court, leading to an appeal by the state. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court subsequently upheld the district court’s acquittal in 2007..He alleges in his petition that when he was undergoing the procedure to migrate to Australia after the acquittal, he found that the website had published the non-reportable judgment on their site. He had, rather fruitlessly, approached the sites and asked them to take down the judgement. On their refusal to do the same, Dave approached the High Court in 2015..In the court, advocate Raj Trivedi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the sites had no authority to publish a non-reportable judgment and that the publication had “adversely affected the personal and professional life of the petitioner”..The petitioner relied on Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which states that copies of judgments may not be given to persons other than the parties, without the order of the Assistant Registrar. The Rule also states that third parties may apply for copies of the judgment on the submission of an affidavit containing the grounds on which they are required..However, Justice RM Chhaya saw no merit in the plea, stating in his order dated January 19,.“The petitioner has not been able to even prima facie point out that provisions of which law are attracted in this petition….… merely publishing on the website would not amount to same being reported as the word “reportable” used for judgment is in relation to it being reported in law reporter..As pointed out earlier, even under the relevant High Court Rules, a third party can get a copy of the said judgment.”.Thus, the court dismissed the plea, leaving the petitioner to “take any other recourse, if available, in law”..This is not the first time this issue has come up in the courts. Last year, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had passed an order directing the High Court’s Registrar to instruct print and electronic media outlets not to publish the names of lawyers and judges appearing in cases..However, the First Bench of the High Court later clarified that the direction was merely advisory in nature..Read the order:
The Gujarat High Court last week dismissed a plea seeking a direction to restrain websites from publishing a non-reportable judgment..The petitioner, one Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave, had approached the High Court against judgment search website Indiankanoon.org, and Google, for publishing a non-reportable judgment in a criminal case against him..Dave was charged in 2001 of offences under Sections 34, 120B, 201, 302, 364, 404 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2004, he was acquitted by the trial court, leading to an appeal by the state. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court subsequently upheld the district court’s acquittal in 2007..He alleges in his petition that when he was undergoing the procedure to migrate to Australia after the acquittal, he found that the website had published the non-reportable judgment on their site. He had, rather fruitlessly, approached the sites and asked them to take down the judgement. On their refusal to do the same, Dave approached the High Court in 2015..In the court, advocate Raj Trivedi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the sites had no authority to publish a non-reportable judgment and that the publication had “adversely affected the personal and professional life of the petitioner”..The petitioner relied on Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which states that copies of judgments may not be given to persons other than the parties, without the order of the Assistant Registrar. The Rule also states that third parties may apply for copies of the judgment on the submission of an affidavit containing the grounds on which they are required..However, Justice RM Chhaya saw no merit in the plea, stating in his order dated January 19,.“The petitioner has not been able to even prima facie point out that provisions of which law are attracted in this petition….… merely publishing on the website would not amount to same being reported as the word “reportable” used for judgment is in relation to it being reported in law reporter..As pointed out earlier, even under the relevant High Court Rules, a third party can get a copy of the said judgment.”.Thus, the court dismissed the plea, leaving the petitioner to “take any other recourse, if available, in law”..This is not the first time this issue has come up in the courts. Last year, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had passed an order directing the High Court’s Registrar to instruct print and electronic media outlets not to publish the names of lawyers and judges appearing in cases..However, the First Bench of the High Court later clarified that the direction was merely advisory in nature..Read the order:
