Subscribe for perks & to support LI

Your Interests & Preferences: Personalise your reading

Which best describes your role and/or interests?

I work in a law firm
I work for a company / in-house
I'm a litigator at the bar
I'm a law student
Aspiring law student
Other
Save setting
Or click here to show more preferences...

I am interested in the following types of stories (uncheck to hide from frontpage)

Firms / In-House
Deals
Courts
Legal Education

Always show me: (overrides the above)

Exclusives & Editor's Picks

Website Look & Feel

Light Text on Dark Background

Save preferences


Note: Your preferences will be saved in your browser. You can always change your settings by clicking the Your Preferences button at the top of every page.

Reset preferences to defaults?

Guj HC dismisses GNLU's appeal, for now, against order calling it an anti-human rights oligarchy; no urgency during court-vacation

No hurry to absolve GNLU of 'epitome of injustice' tag: Guj HCNo hurry to absolve GNLU of 'epitome of injustice' tag: Guj HCThe Gujarat high court today dismissed an urgent hearing application in GNLU’s letters patent appeal against the high court’s order that had called GNLU an “oligarchy” which “casually” denies its students basic human rights.

Appearing through senior advocate Mihir Thakore before vacation judge Biren Vaishnav, GNLU had filed for interim stay against the high court’s 4 May order in which a student of the law school had won against the administration on charges of being illegally frisked and of his exam being wrongfully cancelled by the GNLU administration.

It is understood from sources present in the court that the law school had appealed on the ground that it needed more time to conduct an internal enquiry into the allegations by and against the student.

Justice Vaishnav dismissed GNLU’s application for interim stay, noting that the fairness of such a “cosmetic enquiry within the four corners of the university” could not be vouched for, and therefore when the matter was already listed for 6 June – after court vacations were over – he was not inclined to grant any interim relief on an urgent basis.

GNLU 2013 alumnus Gursharan H Virk, argued for the petitioner Jaymin Bhatt, and GNLU registrar Thomas Mathew was present for GNLU in court today.

Note: An earlier version of the story incorrectly stated that the high court had dismissed GNLU’s appeal against the order. This has now been corrected to state that the high court only dismissed GNLU’s application for urgent hearing of the appeal.

Click to show 13 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Show?
Like +2 Object -1 Confused Zeus Says . . 23 May 16, 11:29
Has the appeal been dismissed, or was just the prayer for interim relief rejected? if it's the latter, then the headline is misleading.
Reply Report to LI
1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -4 kianganz 23 May 16, 13:26
Thanks, we've clarified the headline...
Reply Report to LI
1.1.1
Show?
Like +3 Object -1 First Batch 24 May 16, 13:44
Guj HC dismisses GNLU's appeal, "for now"- this is a very interesting phrase I have come across, can anybody please explain it? According to my limited knowledge of law and court practice, an appeal cant be dismissed "for now"! I am sure you'd want to clarify and say, "Guj HC dismisses GNLU's application for interim relief/for early hearing/listing.
Reply Report to LI
1.1.2
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Dont be Yellow 25 May 16, 10:20
Dear Kian, while i believe that you do try to be correct in your reporting the headline is still incorrect.

May i point you to better language - "Gujarat High Court refuses to grant stay in GNLU examination fiasco matter" - (I hope you know where this was Ctrl+C'ed from)

Best don't go down the TOI lane of wrong, albeit sensational, headlines.

Regards.
Reply Report to LI
1.1.2.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -4 kianganz 25 May 16, 10:28
Thanks for your feedback but I think the headline is fine as is. It was literally a letters patent 'appeal' for an early hearing, which has been dismissed for now, with GNLU basically having been told: Go away, come back later maybe.

It may not be literally be the 100% correct legal terminology, but it practically summarises what actually happened.
Reply Report to LI
1.1.2.1...
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Yellow & Stubborn 26 May 16, 11:07
Dear Kian,

Pray could you please point out me out to the legal provision which shows that an appeal can be dismissed "for now".

Apologies in advance if you feel that holding you to such standards is incorrect.

Regards
Reply Report to LI
1.1.2.1...
Show?
Like +0 Object -2 kianganz 26 May 16, 11:43
Hmm, perhaps in a world where the commonly understood meaning of things also has some value? It's very likely that GNLU will continue pressing for a non-urgent hearing in its appeal after the holidays, right?

By analogy, say you call MTNL for a phone connection, and they say, no, call back in 12 weeks, we don't think your application is important enough, then we could say: MTNL has dismissed Yellow & Stubborn's phone connection application for now.

Our yardstick in headline is: can it be understood? Does it describe what happened without being deceptive? Is it snappy enough to be readable as a headline (rather than an academic treatise?)
Reply Report to LI
1.1.2.1...
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Hum Nahi Badlenge 26 May 16, 13:28
Fair Enough.

Though reporting language vis a vis an action by MTNL and an order by a Court would need some differentiation.

Also for a student/ practitioner of law (though perhaps not for what we call a layman) the above headline is deceptive in the sense that it communicates that there is a provision under law where appeals can be dismissed "for now".

Cheers
Reply Report to LI
1.1.2.1...
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 26 May 16, 13:42
Thanks for your understanding, appreciate why there was some confusion, which was not intended.

The initial headline said that appeal was dismissed, a commenter complained that it was only an interim appeal that was dismissed, so I added 'for now' to the headline to clarify that it wasn't necessarily the end of the road for GNLU in the appeal process...
Reply Report to LI
1.1.2.1...
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 First Batch 31 May 16, 11:20
It would also be appropriate Kian, if you could clarify, which Order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is under challenge in the Appeal (which has been rejected "for now" as you say), the one allowing the Writ on merits or an order rejecting early hearing? Leaving aside the technicalities, if you could clarify and specify the order which is being assailed, the headline as it stands, would be properly justified. Just a suggestion.
Reply Report to LI
2
Show?
Like +2 Object -2 Nelsonian 23 May 16, 11:33
Looking at the entirety of the matter you could never have convinced a vacation bench about the urgency of the appeal......God knows why GNLU is not using basic understanding of the law and the court craft......I wonder how much money did they waste to move this appeal.....the amount should be recovered from the salary of the person responsible for this decision to appeal before the vacation bench and deposited to the state legal aid fund or something like that.

Nevertheless, the heading of the story is a bit misleading because only an appeal for interim relief was refused.
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Krisna 23 May 16, 16:24
And I predicted right. GNLU filed an appeal
Reply Report to LI
4
Show?
Like +0 Object -2 Rahul L 23 May 16, 18:12
Respected Madam, please give some information on CLAT cut off for GNLU. Thank you.
Reply Report to LI


Latest comments