IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
MR. XXXX, S/O. XXXX – Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar General, High Court Of Karnataka And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.25557 OF 2023 (GM -RES)
Decided On : 28-02-2024
Right to be Forgotten - Accused's Name Masking - IPC Section 354A, 354B, POCSO Act Section 12 - The court discussed the right to be forgotten, right to informational privacy, and the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted the evolving legal framework, including the right to be forgotten recognized in the European Union Regulation of 2016 and the Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The court also referred to judgments from the Apex Court and the High Court of Delhi, emphasizing the right of an acquitted accused to live with dignity and the need for masking the name of the accused in digital records.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the masking of his name in the digital records of the High Court after being discharged of allegations in a criminal case. The petitioner argued that the digital records depicting him as an accused were causing prejudice and hindering job opportunities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, having been discharged of the allegations, should have the right to live with dignity and not be prejudiced by the digital records. It emphasized the need to enable the internet to forget, like humans forget, and recognized the petitioner's right to be forgotten.
Issues: The main issue concerned the petitioner's request to mask his name in the digital records of the High Court, highlighting the prejudice caused by the digital records depicting him as an accused despite being discharged of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evolving legal framework, including the right to be forgotten, right to informational privacy, and the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the need to enable the internet to forget, recognized the petitioner's right to be forgotten, and directed the Registrar General to mask the petitioner's name in the digital records.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka was directed to mask the name of the petitioner in its digital records pertaining to Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021 forthwith.
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the Registry of this Court to remove the name of the petitioner from the digital records maintained in Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021 and not to reflect the name of the petitioner in relation to Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021.
2. Heard Smt. Abhinaya K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Sans details, facts in brief, are as follows:-
On 28-09-2021, one Sri. xxxx registers a complaint before the Station House Officer of S.S. Puram Police Station, Tumkur alleging, that when his daughter xxxxxx xxxxxxxx, aged about 16 years was attending online classes from home, the petitioner, a tenant in the house of one Gangadaraiah abutting the house of the complainant, had developed contact with his daughter which he had noticed from the room of his house. It is alleged that he had noticed that the petitioner began to make gestures from his window, to the window of the daughter of the complainant, when she was attending online classes. It is the complaint averment that the father checks the mobile phone of his daughter without her knowledge and discovered that the petitioner was sending messages on whats app which were sexually intimidating and which were in the nature of trying to force her to have sexual intercourse with him. Plethora of texts had been exchanged between his daughter and the petitioner. This complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.105 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 354A and 354B of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Investigation commenced against the petitioner after registration of crime.
4. The Police conduct a detailed investigation and file a ‘B’ report observing that it was a false case registered against the petitioner. By then, the petitioner had filed Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021 before this Court. In view of filing of the ‘B’ report, this Court disposed the petition in terms of its order dated 02-02-2022. After the said order being passed by this Court, the concerned Court, after hearing the parties, accepted the ‘B’ report and discharged the accused i.e., the petitioner.
5. The issue in the lis does not concern merit of the crime. The petitioner is knocking at the doors of this Court, on the ground that when the name of the petitioner is clicked on any search engine, it reveals him to be an accused in the aforesaid crime and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021. It is, therefore, the petitioner seeks masking of his name in the digital records of this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the ‘B’ report depicts that it was a false case, as the daughter of the complainant and the petitioner were close friends and they had exchanged several messages. It was not one sided, but the daughter had also exchanged messages. Therefore, the Police after investigation filed a ‘B’ report, stating it to be a false case and the complainant did not contest the ‘B’ report. Thereafter, the concerned Court also closes the case accepting the ‘B’ report and discharges the petitioner. She would submit that the digital records still show him as an accused. On account of the name being displayed in the website of the High Court, he is not getting any job and his brothers also are not getting any job, as the moment search is done, it would show that the petitioner was an accused. Explanation that he is discharged comes about later. But, by then all his job offers vanish. She would contend, that if the charge sheet had been filed or there was conviction, it would have been a different circumstance. The petitioner is now left without any blame. The digital records depict him to be an accused, which has placed him worse than being an accused. She would submit that every human being is entitled to live with dignity. Theref
AI
The right to privacy includes the right to be forgotten, allowing individuals acquitted of charges to remove their names from public records and mitigate the impacts of past allegations on their futu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the freedom of speech and expression with the right to privacy and reputation, emphasizing that the right to privacy, reputatio....
Judgments forming part of Court records are public documents as referable under Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act.
The judgment establishes that the right to privacy, including the right to be forgotten, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and courts have the discretion to redact....
The judgment emphasizes the obligation of courts to maintain judgments as per applicable rules and regulations, the limitations on the right to be forgotten, and the public interest in maintaining in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.