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.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
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.
It may not be literally be the 100% correct legal terminology, but it practically summarises what actually happened.
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
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?)
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
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...
Nevertheless, the heading of the story is a bit misleading because only an appeal for interim relief was refused.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first