A 29-year-old from Maharashtra has petitioned the Bombay High Court to have his name masked from online court orders related to a rent dispute, citing privacy concerns and negative impacts on his marriage prospects. Advocate Mayank Bagla highlighted the potential harm to the petitioner’s reputation and personal life.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: A 29-year-old resident of Maharashtra has appealed to the Bombay High Court, requesting directives to obscure his name from court order copies available online. This step has been prompted by the appearance of these orders in Google search results, which, according to the petitioner, adversely impacts his marriage prospects and violates his right to privacy.
The petitioner, embroiled in a rent dispute, found that the orders related to this case were accessible through simple Google searches. This exposure, he argued, jeopardizes his future personal relationships and tarnishes his reputation.
Advocate Mayank Bagla, representing the petitioner, emphasized before the court that the petitioner, being a young individual, suffers considerable harm due to the visibility of such information.
“The availability of this information impacts both his marriage prospects and his credibility.”
– Bagla stated.
The matter has been scheduled for a hearing in two weeks by the division bench comprising Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
ALSO READ: Bombay HC Directs BMC: Provide Compensation for Tragic Drowning of Two Children
The issue, as elaborated in the praecipe filed through advocate Prerak Choudhary, involves an
“incorrectly identifying the petitioner’s mother as his wife”
– in the court order.
This mistake has led to significant personal consequences for the petitioner. Choudhary pointed out-
“As a result, anyone searching the petitioner’s name on Google might mistakenly think he is married, which hinders or delays his marriage prospects.”
In support of his case, the petitioner referenced the landmark Supreme Court judgement in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, which enshrined the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as an integral component of the right to life.
The petitioner argued that court orders should not be indexed by search engines unless explicitly marked as reportable by the court. The underlying conflict stemmed from a leave and licence agreement, which was ultimately resolved in favor of the petitioner. Despite this favorable outcome, the persistent online presence of these orders, especially those containing typographical errors, infringes upon his “right to be forgotten.”
“It violates the petitioner’s right to privacy that non-reportable judicial proceedings are displayed in Google search results, causing undue harm to the petitioner’s reputation in the public’s eyes.”
– the petitioner submitted.
