Today, CJI Stated, “Judgments are part of public records, and orders for their removal by courts will have serious ramifications.”
NEW DELHI: Today (24th July): The Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court judgment that had ordered the online legal database Indian Kanoon to remove a judgment from its site, aiming to uphold a litigant’s right to be forgotten. This matter is expected to have significant ramifications.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading the bench, stayed a judgment of the Madras High Court that required a law portal to remove a verdict acquitting a man in a rape case from its website.
He remarked,
“Judgments are part of public records, and orders for their removal by courts will have serious ramifications.”
The bench further stated,
“If a person is acquitted, how can the High Court direct the law portal to remove the judgment? Once delivered, it becomes part of the public record.”
Background
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by the India Kanoon portal against the Madras High Court’s directive to remove the judgment, cause of action from a plea by Karthick Theodore.
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.
