The Delhi High Court ruled that keeping an estranged couple’s names in online records serves no public interest and directed their removal. The judgment emphasized the right to privacy and protection from undue online scrutiny. It highlighted the importance of balancing transparency with individual dignity. Authorities have been instructed to implement the order promptly.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court ordered the removal of an estranged couple’s names from the records of a criminal case tied to their matrimonial dispute.
Justice Amit Mahajan, who presided over the case, also permitted the man to approach various public search engines and portals to request that both his and his wife’s identities be concealed.
The Court highlighted the significance of upholding the principles of the “right to privacy” and the “right to be forgotten” in such matters.
Read Also: “It Seems ‘Kalyug’ Has Arrived”: HC On Elderly Couple’s Alimony Battle
The Court stated,
“The need to allow the masking of names of individuals acquitted of any offence or when criminal proceedings against such persons are quashed, emanates from the most basic notions of proportionality and fairness.”
Senior Advocate SD Salwan represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar represented the Respondents.
The Court further noted,
“While access to information is a fundamental aspect of democracy, it must be balanced with the individual’s right to privacy. This balance is particularly important after the quashing of proceedings, as no public interest is served by keeping such information available online.”
It asserted that allowing ongoing public display of accusations against individuals who have been exonerated would be unjust, stating,
“Such would be contrary to the individual’s right to privacy which includes the right to be forgotten, and the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
In May 2024, the Delhi High Court set-aside a trial court’s directive to register a First Information Report (FIR) against a man based on his wife’s allegations. Following this decision, the man sought the removal of the case details from public view.
The Court granted his request, instructing that, henceforth, the Registry should refrain from using the parties’ actual names. Instead, the man will be identified as ‘ABC’ and his former wife as ‘XYZ’ in the case records.
The Petitioner represented by Senior Advocate SD Salwan, along with Advocates Arvind Chaudhary, Sachin Chaudhary, and Vinay Yadav.
The Respondent represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar, assisted by Advocates Ajay Verma and Vaishnav Kirti Singh.