Introduction
The Supreme Court has decided to review whether the right to be forgotten can be enforced against court judgments. This may reveal the identity of acquitted individuals. This comes in response to a challenge by the legal database website Indian Kanoon. It was against a Madras High Court order dated March 3, which directed the website to remove a judgment. The judgement disclosed the identity of a person acquitted in a sexual assault case.
The bench comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. They noted that different High Courts have issued conflicting rulings on the right to be forgotten. Advocate Apar Gupta, representing the petitioner, highlighted the contradiction. While the Kerala and Gujarat High Courts do not recognize this right, the Madras High Court ruled in favor of it.
Observation
Chief Justice Chandrachud acknowledged the need for a detailed examination of the issue. He stated, “We will have to settle the law.” The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court order and issued a notice regarding the petition. “Issue notice, in the meantime the directions of Madras HC shall remain stayed,” the CJI ordered.
The right to be forgotten is often argued to be part of the right to privacy under Article 21. A position upheld in the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India.
During the hearing, the CJI expressed concerns about the directive to remove publicly available judgments. Once a judgment is delivered, it becomes part of the public record. He questioned the High Court’s order to take down the judgment, stating, “Assuming you are being acquitted, how can the HC direct him (Indian Kanoon) to pull down the judgment…once the judgment is delivered it is part of the public record.”
Chief Justice Observation
The CJI pointed out that while courts may redact names in sensitive cases, ordering the removal of an entire judgment was extreme. He warned that such a precedent could lead to requests for removing judgments in other cases, such as those involving financial information in arbitration matters. The CJI also raised the issue of individuals convicted of crimes and having served their sentences potentially seeking to have their identities masked in judgments.
Indian Kanoon’s Argument:
- The counsel for Indian Kanoon contended that the website already takes measures to mask domestic or sensitive cases, even without a statutory obligation. However, they argued that the present case does not justify such measures. “This case is distinct from these categories and it is emerging with purging irregularities under a right to be forgotten which has no ingredients and is acting as a right to erasure,” the counsel stated.
They also clarified that Indian Kanoon has a policy for removing sensitive information from Google search results. This is in cases involving personal disputes, child custody, or matters under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The respondent, was the original petitioner before the High Court. He argued that revealing his name in the judgment led to him being denied Australian citizenship. He sought the removal of his identity from the judgment available on the High Court website and Indian Kanoon.
Background:
The case arose from a plea challenging a single judge’s order rejecting the request to redact the name and details of a man acquitted in a sexual assault case. The man argued that the right to be forgotten and privacy are inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution. He claimed that public judgments containing personal details could perpetuate stereotypes even after legal exoneration.
The Madras High Court bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and R Vijayakumar observed that while courts must preserve data. They must also balance this with protecting individuals’ privacy. The bench directed Indian Kanoon to remove the judgment from their website. They ordered the Madras High Court registry to redact the acquitted individual’s name. Also details from the judgment before making it publicly available.
