IMPORTANT POINT
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 personal information from public records to protect this right.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.12015 of 2021 dated 03.08.2021.

BACKGROUND

The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 03.08.2021, wherein the plea for a mandamus directing the Registrar General, Additional Registrar General and Registrar (IT-Statistics) (R1, R2 and R3 respectively) to redact his name and other identities from judgment dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A. (MD)No.321 of 2011 has been rejected. He had also sought a direction to Ikanoon Software Development Private Limited (R4) to reflect the redaction in its publication of the judgment in criminal appeal, which plea had also been rejected.

2. The appellant had faced criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and had been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court by judgment dated 29.09.2011. The judgment was reversed by the High Court on 30.04.2011 in Crl.A.(MD)No.321 of 2011 and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The judgment has attained finality.

3. The appellant had, after acquittal, re-married and has three children. While so, the appellant had found, from a perusal of the High Court website, that the judgment dated 30.04.2011 revealed his personal details including details of his family that would reveal his identity.

4. He is aggrieved by the fact that such personal and intimate details of his life are available in public domain and claims protection by redaction of those details. This plea is based on his entitlement to privacy, particularly since his life has turned a new chapter and it is unnecessary for the private aspects of his past life to be open to public scrutiny.

5. The uploading of the unredacted judgment on the web portal has very significant repercussions in that, he was awaiting a visa for to travel to Australia that was denied by the authorities citing that criminal case. He thus made a request before R4 that the judgment be taken down from the portal, to which it did not accede. He had thus approached this Court seeking the same relief which also came to be rejected. Hence, this writ appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT

6. The arguments raised before the Writ Court are reiterated before us by Mr.Jayavel. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.S.Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1, wherein the right to privacy had been held to be an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, enforceable in law.

7. The writ petitioner submits that the rights to be forgotten and of privacy are inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution. He assails the order of the writ court on the ground that redaction of name and identity are legal entitlements in light of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The uploading of judgments containing personal details triggers stereotypical ideas in the minds of the readers which continue long after the slur cast by the original judgment has been removed by the legal process.

8. Referring to the case of XYZ Hospital, (1988 8 SCC 296) he points out that the procedure of masking of personal and identifying details is not unknown to the Supreme Court which has been issuing such directions as an when deemed appropriate. In fact, in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India V. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2020) 5 SCC 481 the Apex Court had held that Section 8(1)(f) of the Right to Information Act providing for Protection of the privacy of individuals is applicable to itself.

9. The writ Court has distinguished the decisions cited by the petitioner, referring to those specific instances where identity of victims has been protected either by statute or by the Court. The petitioner however makes a distinction between statutory protection afforded to children and victims of abuse, and the a