Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Karthick Theodre - Appellant
Versus
The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 12015 of 2021 & WMP(MD). No. 9466 of 2021
Decided On : 03-08-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 21, 105, 104, 19(1)(a), 12, 215 and 17 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 417 and 376 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 232, 248 and 255 - Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Act, 2015 - section 19 (1) - Official Secrets Act, 1923 – Protection Of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 - Section 23 - Government of India Act, 1915 - Section 108 - Data Protection Act, 1988 - Name To Be Redacted From Judgment Of Court - Whether an accused person who on being charged for committing an offence and having undergone trial and ultimately been acquitted of all charges by a Court of competent jurisdiction, has right to seek for destruction or erasure or redaction of their personal information from public domain – Held, High Court is a Court of Record under Article 215 of Constitution - As a superior Court of Record, it is entitled to preserve original record in perpetuity - Thus, sanctity of an original record cannot be altered or otherwise dealt with except in a manner prescribed by law - No judgment of any Court has been cited to show that prerogative power of this Court under Article 226 extends to direct alteration of its own records - It will be more appropriate to await enactment of Data Protection Act and Rules thereunder, which may provide an objective criterion while dealing with plea of redaction of names of accused persons who are acquitted from criminal proceedings - If such uniform standards are not followed across country, constitutional courts will be riding an unruly horse which will prove to be counterproductive to existing system - Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to redact the name and other identities of the petitioner herein in the judgement dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A(MD).No.321/2011 on the file of this Court and accordingly direct that Respondent No.4 to redact the same in their respective publication of the same.
1. The present case has raised an important question as to whether an accused person who on being charged for committing an offence and having undergone trial and ultimately been acquitted of all charges by a Court of competent jurisdiction, has the right to seek for destruction or erasure or redaction of their personal information from the public domain. The other important question that arises for consideration is if such a right is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India (“the Constitution”) as a right to privacy which is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty, and hence an enforceable right as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India Others reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1, and whether in light of the same, this Court can set out guidelines in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?
2. The background of this case has been set out in the earlier Order passed by this Court on 16.07.2021 and it will be beneficial to extract the same hereunder:
2. The petitioner faced criminal proceedings for an offence under Sections 417 and 376 of I.P.C., and he was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court by Judgment dated 29.09.2011. The petitioner took this Judgment on appeal before this Court and this Court after dealing with the merits of the case and exhaustively dealing with the law governing the case, acquitted the petitioner from all charges in a Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD).No.321 of 2011, dated 30.04.2014. By virtue of this Judgment, the petitioner has been acquitted from all charges and the petitioner can no more be identified as an accused in the eye of law.
3. Today, the world is literally under the grips of social media. The background of a person is assessed by everyone by entering into the Google search and collecting the information. There is no assurance that the information that is secured from the Google is authentic. However, it creates the first impression and depending upon the data that is provided, it will make or mar the characteristics of a person in the eyes of the Society. Therefore, in today's world everyone is trying to portray himself or herself in the best possible way, when it comes to social media. This is a new challenge faced by the World and already everyone is grappling to deal with this harbinger of further complexities awaiting mankind.
4. The petitioner is now facing a very peculiar problem. Even though the petitioner had been acquitted from all the charges, his name gets reflected in the Judgment rendered by this Court and unfortunately, whoever types the name of the petitioner in Google search is able to access the Judgment of this Court. In the entire Judgment, the petitioner is identified as an accused even though he has been ultimately acquitted from all charges. According to the petitioner, this causes a serious impact on the reputation of the petitioner in the eyes of the Society and therefore, the petitioner wants his name to be redacted from the Judgment of this Court.
5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Central Government is in the process of finalising the Data Protection Bill 2019 and it is yet to come into effect. This Act when brought into force will effectively protect the data and privacy of a person.
6. Till now, the Legislature has enacted laws protecting the identity of victims, who are
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
