The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging High Court’s administrative orders against uploading orders and judgments in sensitive cases on the court websites including the e-court platform.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that challenged the High Court’s administrative decision to withhold uploading orders and judgments in sensitive cases on the court’s website, including the e-court platform.
The PIL, filed by advocate Rohit Mehta, also contested certain sections of newly enacted laws—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—which impose restrictions on publishing information related to cases involving sexual offences without the court’s permission.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal, delivered its judgment on September 20. The Court held that the victim’s right to anonymity is intrinsically linked to the victim’s dignity and existence as a person.
“If the identity of the victim is disclosed, especially in crimes against women/juveniles, then harm to the person and dignity of the victim/juvenile that may ensue would outweigh the injury caused to a stranger, whose right to know the identity of the victim is denied,”
-the Court emphasized.
The bench also highlighted that the right to life and personal liberty, as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, is paramount, overriding all other fundamental rights.
“The life contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution is not mere animal existence but a life of dignity, which nature has provided to every human being. All other fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution are dwarfed by the right under Article 21,”
-the Court further explained while rejecting the PIL.
Sensitive cases, such as those involving sexual offences, matrimonial disputes, and juveniles, are among those for which orders and judgments are withheld from public access.
The PIL also took issue with the High Court Computer Committee’s directive to the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to implement mechanisms that anonymize party names in search results, case listings, and other search options for cases related to the Juvenile Justice Act, Official Secrets Act, intelligence agencies, domestic violence, and sexual offences against women and children.
While a special section was created on the High Court’s website to allow lawyers to download judgments in such cases, this feature remains inaccessible to the general public. Mehta further questioned the prohibition on publishing judgments in matrimonial disputes, as laid out under Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 33 of the Special Marriage Act, even when party details are anonymized.
The Court acknowledged the complexity of the matter, which required balancing two conflicting fundamental rights: the victims’ right to remain anonymous and the petitioner’s right to information.
While ruling in favor of the victim’s privacy rights, the Court noted that the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subordinate to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
“If there is no life, then the question of right to information does not arise. Thus, right to life takes precedence over right to information,”
-the Court stated.
It further clarified that the right to information invoked by the petitioner could be subject to multiple restrictions. Disclosing the identity of victims, the Court argued, would be contrary to the standards of morality and decency, as such exposure could strip victims of their dignity and prevent them from leading a life of respect.
“The victims in crimes relating to women and juveniles belong to a special class of citizens who are the most vulnerable stakeholder in the entire transaction of crime and prosecution, and deserve special treatment by making available certain protections and immunities in the shape of imposing prohibition for disclosure of identity of the victim, to prevent the victim from suffering any harm to body, mind, or reputation,”
-the Court asserted.
The bench further noted that victims in cases involving women and juveniles are entitled to special protection as per existing laws, and the administrative orders issued by the High Court reflect these legal protections.
“The provision under Section 33 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and all administrative instructions issued by the High Court, as challenged in this petition, are meant to protect the reputation, dignity, and person of the victim of sexual offences/juveniles. As such, these protections available to victims cannot be subjugated to the right to information of the petitioner. The protections available to such class of victims/juveniles stand at a much higher pedestal than the right of the petitioner to information,”
-the Court elaborated.
In its concluding remarks, the Court maintained that the victim’s right to anonymity could not be compromised in favor of the petitioner’s right to information.
“From the conspectus of the above discussion, no case of interference is made out,”
-the Court concluded while dismissing the PIL.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Sensitive Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
