Access the court order here.
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has directed its Registry to mask the identity of a 37-year-old individual from the digital versions of a 2018 judgment and related case records available on the High Court’s website, holding that the directions were justified under the Right to Privacy and the Right to be Forgotten under Article 21.
The HC directed the Registry to henceforth refer to the petitioner as “ABC” in the cause title, pleadings, citations, judgments and orders in these cases. The present order also redacts the individual’s name.
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not dispute the petitioner’s Right to privacy and left it to the court to pass an appropriate order.
Right to be forgotten applies where no public interest exists: In its reasoning, the bench held that the Right to privacy is a fundamental right and an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that this right incorporates the Right to be forgotten. The court observed that while access to information is fundamental to democracy, this must be balanced against an individual’s Right to privacy, particularly where, after criminal proceedings have been quashed, no public interest is served by keeping the information alive on the internet.
The bench noted that the petitioner was not seeking destruction of court records, but only the delinking of the judgment from the court’s public-facing website and database.
Background of the case: According to the petition, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on October 5, 2017, at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. He obtained protection through an anticipatory bail application. The dispute between the parties was subsequently resolved, following which a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed a criminal application and quashed the FIR and all proceedings. This was documented in an order dated November 27, 2018.
The petitioner contended that despite his complete legal exoneration more than seven years ago, the unredacted digital records of the district court judgment remained prominently accessible on the High Court’s website and indexed by external search engines. He argued that this “algorithmic permanence” surfaced routinely during professional and educational background checks, prejudicing his career progression and causing social stigma to his family, including his minor daughter.
Delhi HC’s landmark right to be forgotten judgment: On May 29, in a landmark right to be forgotten judgment, Delhi High Court passed a combined judgment in over 37 cases, ordering search giant Google to de-index judgments and news reporting and ordering Indian Kanoon to restrict particular name-based search functionality. You can refer to Delhi HC’s judgement here:  [ PDF | Markdown file | MediaNama Explainer ]
Challenging this order, Indian Kanoon filed a petition in Delhi HC. Read the nine arguments raised in the petition…
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]
