Delhi High Court: A petition was filed seeking issuance of directions to the registry to mask the name of the petitioner from the order and the pleadings that were filed in the case including the order dated 10-05-2024. Amit Mahajan, J., directed the registry to mask the petitioner’s name and that of Respondent 2 from the records and search results of the case. The Court also ordered that the parties be referred to as “ABC” and “XYZ,” respectively, in all pleadings and orders. Additionally, the petitioner was permitted to approach public search engines and other portals to ensure the removal of identifiable details from online platforms.
The case stemmed from a criminal complaint where the petitioner was named as an accused, leading to a direction for the registration of an FIR against them by the Metropolitan Magistrate. This order was later overturned by the Court on 10-05-2024, thereby quashing all criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking removal of case details from public access, arguing that the continued accessibility of such records adversely impacted their personal life and career. The writ court directed the petitioner to approach the relevant court for relief, resulting in the present application.
The petitioner contended that despite the quashing of the criminal proceedings, their name and details remained publicly accessible through online portals and search engines. This digital permanence caused significant stigma, adversely affecting the petitioner’s social life, career prospects, and reputation. The petitioner sought redress under the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten, both recognized as fundamental rights under Article 21.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the continued availability of the case details online violated their right to privacy and dignity. It was submitted that the presence of these records online gave a misleading impression that the petitioner was involved in a criminal matter, despite being exonerated. The petitioner highlighted the global recognition of the right to be forgotten, particularly under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which allows individuals to request the removal of irrelevant or outdated personal information. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner, being a young professional, was particularly vulnerable to irreparable harm due to the enduring presence of this information on the internet, which acted as a deterrent to their personal and professional growth.
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s grievance was valid and grounded in the evolving jurisprudence on privacy. The Court underscored the need to balance the public’s right to access information with the individual’s right to privacy. It noted that in the digital age, information published online often gains a permanent character, making it essential to safeguard the dignity and reputation of individuals who have been acquitted or whose proceedings have been quashed.
The Court remarked that “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. While access to information is a fundamental aspect of democracy, the same cannot be divorced from the need to balance the right to information of the public with the individual’s right to privacy. This is especially when after the quashing of the proceedings, no public interest can be served by keeping the information alive on the internet.”
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief under the right to be forgotten and directed the registry to mask the names of both the petitioner and the respondent from all records and that future references to the parties in the case be anonymized as “ABC” and “XYZ,” respectively, in all pleadings, orders, and online portals. Additionally, the court allowed the petitioner to approach search engines and social media platforms to mask the judgment and any associated material reflecting the names of the parties.
[ABC v. State, CRL.M.C. 495/2019, decided on 06-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. S.D. Salwan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Mr. Sachin Chaudhary & Mr. Vinay Yadav, Advocates for petitioner
Respondents Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State. Insp. Seema SPUWAC. Singh, Mr. Ajay Verma with Mr. Vaishnav Kirti Singh, Advs. for R-2.
The post appeared first on .