40 Important Judgments Of Gujarat High Court In 2023

LiveLaw reported 204 judgments from the Gujarat High Court in 2023. Here are some important judgments1. Gujarat High Court Backs Centre's Policy Denying Entry In India To Foreigners Convicted For Sexual OffencesCase Title: Dhanraj Rajendra Patel v. Union of IndiaCase Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 10The Gujarat High Court recently came in support of Centre's policy refusing entry in India to foreigners convicted of rape or foreigners who are found to be morally depraved.Dismissing a US-citizen's plea, Justice Biren Vaishnav observed, "The petitioner has been convicted as a sex offender and the endorsement is so made on his passport too. In the exercise of a statutory power flowing from the provisions of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, guidelines have been issued that foreigners who are morally depraved are not permitted to enter the territorial limits of India. The country is within its rights to prescribe norms valid to prevent such people from setting foot on the Indian soil."2. Citizens Have Right To Know Rules Under Which They Are Refused Permission To Hold Peaceful Protests: Gujarat High CourtCase Title: Swati Rajiv Goswami v. Commissioner of Police, AhmedabadCase Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 11The Gujarat High Court has held that citizens have a right to know the rules and regulations under which they are denied the permission to hold peaceful protests. It added that refusal of the Police to publicize such rules amounts to "killing and smothering" the very purpose of the Right to Information Act.3. RTI | Personal Info Not Serving Public Interest Can't Be Disclosed: Gujarat HC Tells Judicial Officer Who Sought Transfer Communications Of Other OfficersCase Title: High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Information Commission and 1 other CaseCitation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 12Allowing a petition preferred by the Gujarat High Court administration, a single bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav quashed the order of the State Information Commission requiring the administration to disclose certain third party, personal information sought by a judicial officer under Right to Information Act. The bench reiterated that information which is “personal" in nature and which does not serve any public interest cannot be provided under the Right to Information Act.4. Employee Facing Departmental Action Allowed To Engage Advocate For His Defence If Inquiry Officer Is A Legal Expert: Gujarat High CourtCase Title: Divyesh Govindbhai Kunvariya v. State of GujaratCase Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 13In the context of departmental proceedings, the Gujarat High Court has held that a delinquent employee is entitled to engage a counsel for his defence where the inquiry officer himself is a legal expert.Allowing the plea made by one such employee, Justice A.S. Supehia observed, "In the present case, since the Inquiry Officer himself is a City Civil Judge and expert in the legal proceedings, the assistant of a legal practitioner for defending the case of the petitioner cannot be denied...The Apex Court has emphatically held that if any person, who possesses legal acumen is appointed as an inquiry officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, the denial of a legal practitioner for assistance in inquiry to the charged employee will be unfair."5. S.28 Hindu Marriage Act Prevails Over S.19 Family Courts Act, Time Limit To Prefer Appeal Is 90 Days: Gujarat High CourtCase Title: Chaudhary Chetnaben Dilipbhai v. Chaudhary Dilipbhai LavjibhaiCase Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 17The Gujarat High Court recently reiterated that the time limit for filing an appeal challenging a judgement or order of Family Court arising out of a matrimonial dispute under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) is 90 days.The order addresses the confusion created by the two provisions since whereas the appeal prescribed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is 90 days from the date of order, Section 19 of the Family Courts Act stipulates only a period of 30 days for filing an appeal.6. Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Solely On Ground That Accused Is Not Required For Custodial Interrogation: Gujarat High CourtCase Title: Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar v. State of GujaratCase Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 21A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the non-requirement of custodial interrogation cannot by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail to an accused. "Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail," Justice Samir J. Dave observed.7. Judges Of High Court Hold Constitutional Post, Information About Their Salary and Allowances Cannot Be Disclosed Under Section 4(1)(b)(x) Of RTI Act: Gujarat High CourtCase Title: High Court of Gujarat v. Chandravadan Dhruv & 1 OtherCase Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 23The Gujarat High Court recently quashed and set aside State Information Commission's...

40 Important Judgments Of Gujarat High Court In 2023

Bhavya Singh

Tags