On May 29, Delhi High Court passed a landmark combined judgement in over 37 cases, ordering search giant Google to de-index judgements, news reporting and ordered Indian Kanoon to restrict particular name-based search functionality.
On July 10, Indian Kanoon filed a petition challenging this order. Here are the nine arguments raised in the petition accessed by MediaNama.
You can refer to Delhi HC’s judgement here: PDF | Markdown file | MediaNama Explainer
Some context: In 2019, an individual identified in court records only as “DG” was convicted in a cheque-bounce case and sentenced to four months in prison, along with a fine. While his appeal was pending in 2022, DG settled the matter with the complainant for Rs 7.25 lakh, and the case was formally close.
Despite the settlement, the judgment rightfully remained searchable on Indian Kanoon’s website under his original name.
Later, in 2023, DG filed a writ petition asking the Delhi High Court to direct Indian Kanoon to remove those court records. This is one of 38 similar petitions from different individuals that the court eventually heard together. The above-mentioned judgment ruled in DG’s favour as well in the favour of right to be forgotten doctrine. Since it was a combined judgement the order went further than this individual case alone. Delhi HC directed legal databases to de-index and disable name-based search functionality for the records named across all 38 petitions, the ruling Indian Kanoon is now appealing.
- Puttaswamy judgement never created a “right to be forgotten” principle; Delhi HC ‘misconstrued’ it
Indian Kanoon argues the Delhi High Court has misread the 2017 Puttaswamy privacy judgment which recognised privacy as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21, but its discussion of a “right to be forgotten” was only a passing observation by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, not “does not provide an unqualified right to be forgotten from historical or judicial records,” argues the petition.
How did fundamental right to privacy Puttaswamy judgement referred right to be forgotten?
“Thus, The European Union Regulation of 2016 has recognized what has been termed as ‘the right to be forgotten’. This does not mean that all aspects of earlier existence are to be obliterated, as some may have a social ramification. If we were to recognize a similar right, it would only mean that an individual who is no longer desirous of his personal data to be processed or stored, should be able to remove it from the system where the personal data/ information is no longer necessary, relevant, or is incorrect and serves no legitimate interest. Such a right cannot be exercised where the information/ data is necessary, for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information, for compliance with legal obligations, for the performance of a task carried out in public interest, on the grounds of public interest in the area…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
