Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 20412
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
JOE ABRAHAM MATHEWS – Appellant
Versus
INDIAN KANOON – Respondent
WP 9655/2024
SRI. SAKET BISANI, ADVOCATE
The right to be forgotten is upheld, allowing individuals acquitted of charges to have their names masked from public records to protect their dignity.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 420, and 406 - Writ of Mandamus - Right to be Forgotten - Petitioner sought to have his name sealed from public records following quashing of criminal proceedings against him due to abuse of process by the complainant - Court directed respondents to mask the petitioner's name in all databases in accordance with their policy. (Paras 1-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused in a case involving allegations of rape and fraud. The proceedings were quashed by the court, which found the complainant's actions to be an abuse of process. The petitioner sought to have his name removed from public records to protect his dignity.
Findings of Court:
The court found it appropriate to direct respondents to mask the petitioner's name from all databases, emphasizing the need to uphold the petitioner's dignity and the right to be forgotten.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner is entitled to have his name masked from public records after the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, having been acquitted and facing an abuse of process, is entitled to live in dignity and thus should have his name masked in accordance with the respondent's policy.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
- a.
- Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing this Hon'ble High Courts registry, to remove / seal the name of Petitioner from the case titled as Joe Abraham Mathews v. State by Electronic City Police Station, in Crl.P.No.4799 of 2022 vide Judgement dated 12-Aug-2022 as per ANNEXURE-A.
- b.
- Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, to the Respondents to mask / seal the name of the Petitioner from their website and various other third parties.
- c.
- Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the online court records and Third-party legal records website (intermediaries) to seal / remove the name of the Petitioner from their website.
- d.
- Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, to seal the name of the Petitioner even from the present petition.
- e.
- Pass such other writ or order or direction which this Hon'ble court deems necessary for safeguarding Petitioner's dignity including availing Petitioner the Right to be Forgotten in the interest of Justice and equity."
2. The petitioner gets embroiled in an alleged affair with the complainant and when that is broken it becomes a Crime for offences punishable under Section 376 , 420 and 406 of the IPC . This Court, in terms of its order dated 15.07.2022 in Crl.P.No.4799/2022 quashed the proceedings against the petitioner by observing that the complainant was in the habit of registering the cases of rape against several men one of the victim was the petitioner. The order has become final. The petitioner is now before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent – Indian Kanoon to mask the name of the petitioner in its database or its achives, as the case would be. Plethora of mails communicated by the petitioner has all gone unheeded and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, in the subject petition.
3. The order passed by this Court on 15.07.2022 was unequivocal that it was an abuse of process of the law by the complainant, who dragged the petitioner into the web of crime.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in Indian Kanoon, the respondent has also has policy of masking the name and has produced the said policy.
5. In the light of the policy being in place without driving the petitioner to this Court, Indian Kanoon and others ought to have acted upon the mails communicated, as the petitioner being an accused is effaced long ago and is entitled to live in dignity.
6. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct all the respondents by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to mask the name / details of the petitioner in all database or archive as the case would be, in terms of its policy, without brooking any further delay.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.
Ordered accordingly.
