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 future.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS with a prayer to issue directions to the Registry/Computer Branch of this Court as well as District Court Gurugram to redact the name of the petitioner from the e-courts portal, in connection with FIR No. 100 dated 10.04.2024 under Sections 384 /419 of IPC and Sections 66 -C and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (amended) registered at Police Station Cyber Cell West, Gurugram.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a reputed corporate professional and had been working at the highest levels in Amazon, American Express and HSBC and is having total experience spanning over 20 years in India and USA. The petitioner is a post graduate of reputed educational institutions including Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Delhi University. The petitioner was falsely involved in FIR No. 100 dated 10.04.2024 under Sections 384 /419 of IPC and Sections 66 -C and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (amended), Police Station Cyber Cell West, Gurugram and the total amount in dispute was Rs. 3,000/-. Even, the petitioner was wrongly arrested and was remanded to judicial custody in the said case. Ultimately, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of FIR by filing a petition, i.e., CRM M-38576 of 2024 and vide order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-2), this Court quashed all the proceedings arising out of the FIR. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court to discharge his sureties, which were provided at the time of grant of concession of the bail to the petitioner. Vide order dated 28.10.2024, the trial Court discharged the surety provided in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case, the FIR has been ordered to be quashed by this Court vide order (Annexure P-2) and even the surety provided in his favour have already been discharged by the trial Court vide order dated 28.10.2024. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner is a reputed corporate professional and in order to survive, the petitioner is exploring the job vacancies and is also looking forward to work with international companies and firms for his professional growth and successful career. However, due to the availability of his name on e-courts portal, it is becoming impossible for the petitioner to get a job in India or abroad. Thus, uploading of the case details on websites/e-courts portals, besides being stigmatic in nature, is also adversely affecting his personal life, career and future prospects. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and another Vs. Union of India and others , (2017) 10 SCC 1 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that every individual is having a fundamental right to privacy and observed as follows:-

“623. An individual has a right to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed and such protection of reputation needs to exist not only against falsehood but also certain truths. It cannot be said that a more accurate judgment about people can be facilitated by knowing private details about their lives people judge us badly, they judge us in haste, they judge out of context, they judge without hearing the whole story and they judge with hypocrisy. Privacy lets people protect themselves from these troublesome judgments.

XXXX XXXX XXXX

632. The technology results almost in a sort of a permanent storage in some way or the other making it difficult to begin life aga