This ruling by the Madras High Court marks a significant step in the recognition and implementation of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian jurisprudence. The case in question involved a petitioner who had been previously convicted by a trial court under Sections 417 (cheating) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the High Court later acquitted him of all charges
The Madras High Court recently has reinforced the ‘Right to be Forgotten,’ setting a precedent that underscores the importance of privacy and the ability of individuals to move past their legal histories. This detailed analysis delves into the court’s ruling, its implications, and the broader context of privacy rights in the digital age.
The case in question involved a petitioner who had been previously convicted by a trial court under Sections 417 (cheating) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the High Court later acquitted him of all charges. Despite his acquittal, the petitioner’s name continued to appear in online judgments, leading to a plea for redaction based on the ‘Right to be Forgotten.’
A bench comprising Justices Anita Sumanth and R Vijayakumar addressed this plea, directing the web portal Indian Kanoon to remove the judgment copy containing the petitioner’s name. This action was grounded in the principle that courts, as “service institutions committed to the cause of justice,” should not ignore the privacy rights and the need for individuals to leave behind irrelevant parts of their past. The High Court emphasized,
“Being a service institution committed to serving the cause of justice, the Courts cannot close their eyes to the concerns of privacy and the right that ensure in the litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant. This, in our view, would be a proper understanding and reconciliation of the ratio of the judgments in Swapnil Tripathi and KS Puttaswamy, balancing the concept of open Court/open justice on the one hand and privacy concerns of a citizen, on the other.”
The petitioner’s argument hinged on the assertion that the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ and the right to privacy are intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution. He contended that the redaction of his name and identity from public records was a legal entitlement, especially in light of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. He further argued that the publication of judgments containing personal details perpetuates stereotypes and prejudices, which linger even after the legal system has removed the original stigma.
Initially, a single judge had dismissed the petitioner’s plea, stating that the High Court, as a court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution, must preserve original records indefinitely and that these records cannot be altered without explicit legal provision. However, this stance was challenged and overturned by the division bench, which recognized the evolving nature of privacy rights and the impact of digital records on individuals’ lives.
This ruling by the Madras High Court marks a significant step in the recognition and implementation of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian jurisprudence. It reflects a growing understanding of the complexities surrounding privacy in the digital era and the need for legal systems to adapt to protect individuals’ rights to move on from past allegations, especially when they have been acquitted of those charges.
The decision not only addresses the immediate concerns of the petitioner but also sets a broader precedent for the handling of similar cases in the future. It underscores the delicate balance between the public’s right to information and an individual’s right to privacy and a dignified existence free from unwarranted public scrutiny and historical burdens.
As digital footprints become increasingly indelible, this ruling serves as a reminder of the critical need for privacy safeguards in the digital domain. It highlights the ongoing dialogue between law, technology, and personal rights, urging a reevaluation of how legal records are maintained and accessed in the public sphere.
Also Read- Transfer Of Jayalalithaa’s Jewelry To Tamil Nadu Government|| Karnataka High Court Temporarily Stayed The Order (lawchakra.in)
