The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 18 April 2023. In the case of SHRI KRISH RAJENDRA CHORDIYA Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS MINISTRY OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND ORS IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL and DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE. Education is a fundamental right that paves the way for a bright future. However, there are times when students find themselves entangled in complex situations that threaten their educational journey.


The petitioner, a diligent 17-year-old student, had successfully completed his 10th standard examination under the ICSE Board. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown, he was unable to immediately enroll in a college. During this period, he took the initiative to develop a digital app related to COVID-19 tracking, showcasing his technical and scientific abilities.

Later, when the petitioner sought admission to a junior college for the 11th and 12th standard Science stream, he applied to the 5th Respondent college, as it was closer to his residence. The petitioner and his father followed the college’s instructions, filled in the online application form, and indicated their choice as the 5th Respondent college. Subsequently, the petitioner received an allotment letter from the Deputy Director of Education, confirming his seat in the Science stream of the 5th Respondent college.

The petitioner successfully completed his 11th standard, performed exceptionally well in examinations, and even secured provisional admission to prestigious engineering and technical colleges through competitive entrance exams. However, to his utter dismay, just before the HSC examination, the 5th Respondent college informed him that his admission had been cancelled by an order from the 4th Respondent, the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education.


Several crucial laws come into play in this case:

  1. Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965: This act establishes the framework for secondary and higher secondary education in Maharashtra, including the powers and functions of the state boards and admission regulations for junior colleges.
  2. Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra State Board: This regulation stipulates the eligibility criteria for admission to the Science stream in junior colleges. It requires candidates to secure a minimum of 40% marks in science subjects in the SSC examination or its equivalent.
  3. Right to Education Act, 2009: While not directly applicable in this case, this legislation emphasizes the importance of providing equal educational opportunities and safeguarding the rights of students.
  4. The principle of natural justice: This principle, derived from common law, ensures fair treatment and procedural fairness in administrative and judicial proceedings. It requires that individuals be given an opportunity to be heard and to present their case before any adverse decisions are made.
  5. Constitutional rights: The Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights, including the right to education (Article 21A) and the right to equality (Article 14). These rights play a significant role in shaping educational policies and ensuring that students are not arbitrarily denied admission or subjected to unfair treatment.


Examining the facts of the case and the relevant laws, it becomes evident that the petitioner’s situation raises compelling questions. The 4th Respondent argues that the petitioner is ineligible for admission, citing the applicable regulations. However, it is crucial to consider the coordination and responsibility of both the 4th and 5th Respondents in informing the petitioner of his ineligibility before granting him admission.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s exceptional academic performance, completion of 11th and 12th standards, and success in competitive entrance exams highlight his commitment and aptitude for studying Science. The rigidity and tardiness of the 4th Respondent’s approach appear incongruent with the evolving National Education Policy, which emphasizes flexible learning options and nurturing individual potential.

The principle of natural justice demands that students be given a fair opportunity to present their case. Additionally, constitutional rights, such as the right to education and equality, serve as guiding principles in shaping educational policies and safeguarding students from arbitrary denials and unfair treatment.


Considering the facts, laws, and principles at hand, the court could not disregard the petitioner’s plight. Recognizing the petitioner’s exemplary performance, the court found no plausible reason to exclude him completely from pursuing Science education. The court held that cancelling the petitioner’s admission on the eve of his HSC examination would be a grave injustice.

The court directed the 4th Respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s case, considering his academic achievements, provisional admission to prestigious institutions, and the paramount importance of his educational rights. The court emphasized the need for a fair and expeditious resolution to ensure that the petitioner’s prospects were not unduly jeopardized.


The case highlights the crucial role of laws, regulations, and principles in safeguarding students’ educational rights. It underlines the need for educational institutions and regulatory bodies to balance regulations with flexibility, fairness, and consideration of individual circumstances. Upholding the petitioner’s right to education paves the way for a more inclusive and progressive educational system, where every student’s potential can be nurtured, regardless of procedural intricacies.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to view judgment


A Public information officer is not liable to disclose personal information if it warrants a clear breach of privacy of the individual: Gujarat High Court

High Court Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Information Commission on 17 January, 2023

Bench: Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav



The respondent no: 2 who is a Judicial Officer submitted an application seeking information in reference to

  • Details of Home town, place of practice, personal data form, relation with any Judicial Officer/Advocate
  • Decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat on the representations for transfer submitted by the judicial officers of his batch
  • Certified copy of representations for transfer submitted by the judicial officers of his batch

Among other things.

The application along with the money order was received by the Public Information Officer. Thereafter, the Public Information Officer initiated a correspondence with the concerned department for collecting the information as sought for by the respondent that involved a considerable time. He provided all the information requested by respondent no: 2 except the above mentioned information sought by the respondent. Aggrieved by the action of the Public Information Officer, the respondent filed First Appeal No.37 of  2014  on  11.04.2014 before the Appellate Authority. He contended  that information with regard to certain items viz. items had not been provided. On hearing the parties, the Public Information Officer addressed a reply to the respondent providing the details of the information sought by him. In reference to some of the points for which the information was not provided, the public information officer stated that the information was highly personal and hence he could not provide it.

The Appellate Authority after examining the case rejected the appeal of the respondent. While rejecting  the appeal the Appellate Authority observed that since some of the information was personal in nature, it could not be provided

Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the respondent no: 2 filed an appeal before the respondent no.1. By the impugned order dated  23.06.2014, the Appellate Authority has passed a judgement directing  the Public Information Officer to provide the remaining information available to the respondent no.2 within 15 days from the receipt of the order. It is on this ground that the petition has been filed.

The advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Information Commission could not direct the respondent to  provide the information which it itself could not provide as it pertained to third party and in view of the embargo imposed in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, it was rightly not provided. Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 encapsulates that information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the CPIO or SPIO or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information should be exempted from disclosure


The Gujarat High Court after considering representation from both the parties held that the above mentioned information sought by respondent no: 2 was evidently personal and the appellate authority rightly rejected such information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The Honourable judge also held that any information between the employer and employee solely governed by the service rules and falls within the ambit of ‘personal information’ and the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted intrusion of privacy need not be disclosed.

The Court held that since the above mentioned information is highly personal and warrants a clear breach of privacy, it is not liable to be disclosed.


click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”











The purpose of the Right to Information Act of 2005 is to facilitate the free flow of information: Gujarat High Court orders the commissioner of police to make the rules established by Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, public.

Swati Rajiv Goswami vs Commissioner Of Police, … on 17 January, 2023

Bench: Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav



The petitioner asked for permission to peacefully protest the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, but the police inspector turned it down. The petitioner requested information from the Commissioner of Police (the “Respondent”) regarding the rules established under Section 33(1)(o) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (the “Act”), which were used to process the petitioner’s permission. The information request was turned down. Later, the petitioner filed this Article 226 of the Indian Constitution petition in an effort to have the respondent’s rules made public under Section 33 of the Act.

The counsel of the petitioner contended that not publishing the rules and orders framed under Section 33(1) of the Act are in violation of Section 33(6) of the Act as well as Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). Section 4 imposes an obligation on a public authority to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act

Rules made in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Act must be published in the local gazette and in the affected locality, according to Section 33(6) of the Act. The public authority is required by Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act to proactively publish 17 types of information, including the decision-making process it used, the standards it set for performing its duties, and the rules and regulations it controls or that its employees used to perform their duties.


The Court noted that “Reading the preamble of the RTI Act, indicates that the Constitution of India has established a democratic republic. Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and to contain corruption and to hold Government and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. There must be a harmonization of conflicting interest while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal, in as much as, when revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interest including efficient operations of the government, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information certain information sought for by the citizen who desire to have it must be provided.”

The petitioner is entitled to know the rules established under Section 33 of the Act and to know the grounds upon which the petitioner was denied permission, the Court found, and the respondent is legally required to publish the information provided in Section 4 of the RTI Act. Since the petitioner will be unable to challenge the permit without this knowledge, it would be a blatant violation of his fundamental right and a statutory right to know and access the law of the land that she infringed.

The Court also stated that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for a directive to seek such information, particularly the rules framed under Section 33 of the Act, especially when doing so will help what is obviously the purpose of the RTI Act, i.e., to receive information so as to know what is the procedure followed in the decision-making process and the rules and regulations empowering such decision-making process.

Hence, the Court allowed the petition and directed respondent to publish all the rules and orders framed under Section 33 of the Act on the website.


click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”