- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave Petitioner v. State Of Gujarat & Ors. S
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion addresses a petition seeking a writ or order to permanently restrain the respondents from publicly exhibiting the judgment and order dated 30.10.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1691 of 2005 over the internet, specifically targeting the website Indian Kanoon operated by respondents No. 5 and 6. The petitioner relies on Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, as amended, to support the claim that access to court orders should be restricted. The Court notes that the orders in question are publicly available on the High Court’s own website and at its public counter.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondents can be restrained from publicly exhibiting the judgment and order of this Court on the internet.
- Whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, restricts access to court orders solely to the parties involved or those filing an affidavit as per the Rule.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the petitioner’s prayer for a permanent restraint on the public exhibition of the judgment and order on the internet. It noted that the orders are officially uploaded daily on the High Court’s website once signed by the concerned judges, and are also accessible to the public at the High Court’s counter. The Court interpreted Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which restricts copies of documents and judgments to parties or third parties filing affidavits, as not intended to restrict public access to court orders that are otherwise publicly available through official channels. The Court reasoned that interpreting Rule 151 to limit access only to parties or affidavit-filers would render the Rule redundant in this context. Consequently, while the petitioner's request for permanent restraint was prima facie rejected, the Court directed issuance of notice to the respondents returnable on 26.02.2015 and allowed service by registered post.
Holding and Implications
The Court's final decision was to issue notice to the respondents and not to grant the permanent restraint sought by the petitioner at this stage. The direct consequence is that the respondents are not immediately restrained from publicly exhibiting the judgment and order on the internet. No new precedent was established; rather, the Court reaffirmed the public availability of court orders through official channels and clarified the scope of Rule 151 in this context.
Paresh Upadhyay, J.:— The principal prayer in this petition reads as under.
“[B] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order or direction to the respondents so as to enable permanent restraint of free public exhibition of the judgment and order of this Hon'ble Court dated 30.10.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1691 of 2005 over the internet caused by the Respondent No. 5/6.”
2. Attention of this Court is invited to the snapshot on the website of respondent No. 5-Indian Kannon.com which reads as under.
“Can you remove my court case?
We will not remove any public documents without a court order. Remember, there are many, many copies of these court decisions in existence, and Indian Kanoon has just one of those many copies. If you want information deleted, your only recourse is with the courts that issued the opinion. You should contact the court directly or hire a lawyer to do so for you.”
3. Reliance is placed on Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 (as modified upto 06.02.2013), which reads as under.
“151. Parties to proceedings entitled to copies:
Application by third parties to be accompanied by affidavits.
Copies of documents in any Civil or Criminal proceeding and copies of judgment of the High Court shall not be given to persons other than the parties thereto without the order of the Assistant Registrar. Applications for copies of documents or judgment made by third parties shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds on which they are required, provided that such affidavit shall be dispensed with in case of applications made by or on behalf of the Government of the Union, the Government of any State or the Government of any foreign State.”
4. Prima facie, the prayer made in this petition can not be accepted, in view of the fact that the orders passed by this Court are available on the website of the High Court itself, and they are uploaded everyday, when the same is signed by the concerned Hon'ble Judge(s). Further, copy of these orders is also available on the public counter at the High Court, to anybody.
5. In these circumstances, above quoted Rule 151 can not be read to mean that, the access to the said order is restricted to only the party to the litigation, or to a party who files affidavit as contemplated under the said Rule, else it may turn out to be redundant to that extent. However, in view of the said Rule, as it stands now, issue notice to the respondents returnable on 26.02.2015.
6. Over and above normal mode of service, direct service is permitted. It would be open to serve the respondents No. 3 to 6 by Registered Post.
Alert