Oral order reiterating previous decision on 2002 writ regarding media reportage and digest reporting; no substantive arguments heard due to petitioner absence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12329-CAT of 2003 Date of Decision: December 05, 2013
Union Territory, Chandigarh versus
.....Petitioner
Ram Krishan Bhardwaj and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr.Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
For orders, see order of even date passed in CWP No.20324-CAT of 2002 (Narinder Kaur versus Union of India
and others).
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE
December 05, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.09 10:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Kaur versus Union of IndiaReferred¶14
CWP No.20324-CAT of 2002 (Narinder Kaur versus Union of India and others)
Union Territory, Chandigarh
Ram Krishan Bhardwaj
Surya Kant
Surinder Gupta
Mohinder
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Surya Kant and Surinder Gupta and Mohinder
Parties & counsel
