Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court division bench while hearing a petition filed by Asor Uddin, allowed the petition by setting aside the ex-parte order dated April 26, 2011 passed by the Member, Foreigners' Tribunal, Morigaon, Assam.

The Supreme Court has today issued notice in a plea filed by a Gujarat-based non-profit organisation against in-situ rehabilitation of slum-dwellers on the pond/waste land so notified by the Irrigation Department of State of Gujarat under Section 5 of the Bombay Irrigation Act, 1879, alleging its contrary to the law laid down by Apex Court.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on Tuesday, taking cognisance of a large number of TB patients in Lajpore Central Prison of Surat, recommended the DG Prisons, Government of Gujarat

The highlight of the Supreme Court e-committee newsletter May 2021 is that it has released manuals in 14 languages (English, Hindi, Assamese, Bengali, Gujarathi, Kannada, Khasi, Malayalam, Marathi, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu) for its top citizen-centric servicefree e-Courts services mobile app.

Justice Vikram Nath, was born on September 24, 1962 at Kaushambi district, Uttar Pradesh.

Justice Trivedi was born on June 10, 1960. After pursuing her B Com and LLB, she got enrolled as an advocate on September 18, 1983.

The apex court and the Gujarat High Court have stressed that federalism is an integral aspect of the BSEF doctrine and thereby saved it from the excesses of the amending power.

The Gujarat High Court has denounced the misuse of recently-enacted Gujarat Land Grabbing Act, 2020 followed by the invocation of Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act (PASA) in private property disputes.

The legislation has stringent provisions against any individual or institution indulging in forcible religious conversion by marriage. The Gujarat High Court is hearing two petitions that have challenged the newly enacted amendment. What are the legal issues at stake?

The petitioners termed the Act as an invasion into personal autonomy, free choice, freedom of religion and unlawful discrimination and hence, violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. On August 5, the Court had heard arguments in the plea.