IMPORTANT POINT
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 information integrity.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner makes a rather uncommon request, that the first respondent-Union of India, be directed to mask his name and identity from Ext.P1 judgment, which he had obtained from this Court in W.P. (C) No. 8857/2009.

2. Sri. Santhosh Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that, even though his client exercised his statutory and constitutional rights, in having approached this Court through the afore writ petition, seeking that his name be ordered to be corrected in his official records, since Ext.P1 judgment has now been uploaded in the online arena, he is facing difficulties answering his employer and other persons, particularly those who are outside India, as to why he had done so. He submits that this is causing him prejudice and therefore, has been constrained to approach this Court, especially since “the right to be forgotten” has been globally recognised as a valid right, which also finds recognition in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1. He thus prays that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted, particularly because the fifth respondent - which is an online legal reporting portal - has reported Ext.P6 on their site, thus intruding into his privacy.

3. Sri. B.G. Harindranath - learned standing counsel for the third respondent - High Court of Kerala, responded to the afore submissions of Sri. Santhosh Kumar, contending that the apprehension of the petitioner appears to be wholly untenable and baseless. He submitted that Ext.P1 clearly indicates that the petitioner has done no wrong, nor has he asked for any relief which is impermissible or illegal; and therefore, that the mere record of the case proceedings, which is normal in all such judgments, cannot cause him any prejudice. He added that there are several hundreds of judgments delivered by this Court and by the other Courts in our country, as also Internationally and that solely because a person has invoked legitimate legal remedy, he can never be victimised or found fault with by any person, whether that be in India or outside. He then proceeded to say that if the request impelled in this case is to be allowed, then it will become open and possible for every litigant to seek that his name be masked in every judgments, which will be practically impossible and legally not permissible. He concluded saying that, in any event, this writ petition is not maintainable because a prayer to the first respondent to mask a judgment delivered by this Court is untenable.

4. Sri. K.V. Sreevinayakan - learned Central Government Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2, adopted the afore submissions of Sri. B.G. Harindranath, affirming that the Government of India has no role to play in the masking of the cause title of the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble High Court, or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, or any other Court for that matter. He explained that it is only if the respective Courts are to either anonymise the identity of the litigants, or mask their names and such other credentials, can the petitioner seek any relief qua its publication in the public domain. He, therefore, left it to this Court to issue appropriate orders.

5. Sri. Riji Rajendran - learned counsel for the 7th respondent, submitted that his client has done no wrong because they have only faithfully allowed the publication of judgment delivered by a competent Court, as per law. He argued that the attempt of the petitioner is to blame the publication of the judgment, but conceding that the Courts have committed no wrong in having published the judgments in the manner as is presently available.

6. In reply, Sri. Santhosh Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, even if this Court is not inclined to grant the first prayer in the writ petition - namely to direct the Union of India to mask his client's name and address from Ext.P1 judgm