The Kerala High Court has initiated a significant legal inquiry into the issue of online privacy in the context of court judgments. This development follows a petition seeking the masking or removal of personal details of two individuals from a judgment uploaded online in a criminal case. The court has called for responses from Google, the high court administration, and Indian Kanoon, a legal information website.
Also read- Kerala High Court Advocates For Laws In English To Boost Global Investment (lawchakra.in)
Justice Devan Ramachandran, presiding over the case, responded to the plea filed by two individuals who were previously accused in a criminal case. This case was ultimately quashed following an out-of-court settlement. One of the petitioners, an academic pursuing a PhD and holding an important position, expressed that the continued online availability of the case details on platforms like Indian Kanoon and the official website of the High Court was adversely affecting their daily life.
The petitioners argued that the online publication of the judgment and its perpetual accessibility infringed upon their ‘right to be forgotten,’ a facet of the right to privacy. Despite efforts to have the details removed, including requests to the authorities concerned, they received no positive response, leading them to approach the court.
The plea highlighted the petitioners’ concern that the availability of their identities in the judgment affects their social well-being and right to live with dignity. They contended that no public interest is served by retaining the judgment copies on multiple digital platforms indefinitely, and this was violative of their right to be forgotten.
The petitioners referenced a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Vysakh K.G. v Union of India (2023), where the court allowed the masking of names in family and matrimonial cases based on the right to be forgotten. They also cited the Delhi High Court’s recognition of the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone as essential facets of the right to privacy in Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan v. Quintillion Business Media (P) Ltd. (2019).
The petitioners have sought the removal of their identities from the judgment available on the High Court website and from India Kanoon. The case, represented by Advocates Raghul Sudheesh, J. Lakshmi, Elizabeth Mathew, Bini Das, Dharsana A., and Aravind Sankar.M, is registered under WP (C) No. 39389/2023.
This case underscores the growing legal and ethical challenges posed by the digital age, particularly regarding privacy rights and the public’s access to information. The Kerala High Court’s decision in this matter could set a significant precedent for how personal information is handled in public court documents in the digital era.
