This case brief discusses Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat & others, 2017:GUJHC:1698, where the petitioner sought restraint against online publication of a previous Gujarat High Court judgment that was described as non-reportable.
Quick Takeaways
- A non-reportable judgment is not necessarily a private or inaccessible judgment.
- Publishing a judgment online does not automatically make it "reported" in the law-reporter sense.
- The Court noted that copies of High Court judgments can be obtained under the relevant High Court Rules, subject to the applicable process.
- A party seeking removal or restraint must identify the legal provision or right that is actually violated.
Case Metadata
Background In Brief
The petitioner had earlier faced criminal proceedings and was acquitted. The acquittal was confirmed by the High Court in a criminal appeal. The petitioner later contended that the earlier judgment had been published on the internet even though it was non-reportable, and that its availability online affected his personal and professional life.
Through the writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction restraining free public exhibition of the earlier judgment and order on the internet.
Issue Before The Court
The central issue was whether the respondents could be restrained from making the earlier non-reportable judgment publicly available online merely because it was marked non-reportable, and whether such online availability violated any enforceable legal right of the petitioner.
Court's View
The Gujarat High Court noted that it is a court of record and referred to Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which deals with copies of documents and judgments in civil or criminal proceedings. The Court observed that even a third party can obtain a copy of a High Court judgment subject to the applicable rule process.
The Court further held that merely publishing a judgment on a website would not amount to the judgment being "reported". The word "reportable", in this context, relates to publication in a law reporter. The petitioner was not able to point out a legal provision under which the respondents could be restrained in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This case is useful for lawyers, researchers, litigants and publishers because it separates three concepts that are often confused: access to a court judgment, online availability of a judgment, and formal reporting of a judgment in a law reporter.
Publication And Citation Caution
While this order supports the distinction between non-reportable and unavailable, it should not be read as a blanket rule for every case involving privacy, sealed records, minors, matrimonial matters, sexual offences, confidential information or right-to-be-forgotten claims. Modern privacy and data-protection questions may require separate analysis depending on facts, forum and applicable law.
Practical Notes For Readers
- Check whether the judgment is publicly available from the court or an authorised source.
- Do not assume that "non-reportable" means the judgment cannot be accessed or discussed.
- Use proper citation, court name, case number and date when referring to a judgment.
- Avoid sensationalising names, allegations or sensitive facts where privacy concerns arise.
- For removal or de-indexing requests, identify the exact legal basis and the specific platform or publisher involved.
Official Judgment
This article is an original Chambers of AK case brief based on the Gujarat High Court order. Readers should refer to the judgment PDF for the complete text, facts, reasoning and operative directions.
Download Judgment