Right to be forgotten: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents
|
The judgements of Superior Courts
2021: Delhi HC
Abhinav Garg , May 26, 2021: The Times of India
In an important order on the ‘Right to be forgotten’ and ‘Right to be left alone’, Delhi high court has ordered removal of one of its own verdicts from search engine Google.
The judgment was related to acquittal given in a drug case involving a US citizen of Indian origin. Justice Prathiba M Singh highlighted that the ‘Right to privacy’ includes ‘Right to be forgotten’ and ‘Right to be left alone’ while asking a website — Indian Kanoon — to remove the high court verdict link given in an NDPS case so that the same can’t be accessed by Google and Yahoo search engines. “Owing to the irreparable prejudice, which may be caused to him in his social life and career prospects, in spite of the petitioner having ultimately been acquitted in the said case via the said judgment, prima facie this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to some interim protection, while the legal issues are pending adjudication by this court,” the court noted in an interim order.
Since the court has protected the privacy of the petitioner, TOI is not naming him. In his plea the man told the court that he is of Indian origin but an American citizen by birth who was slapped with a case under the NDPS Act when he visited India in 2009.
While the trial court acquitted him in 2011, the HC upheld his innocence two years later. He told the high court that on his return to the US he decided to pursue law at an university, but realised he faces a disadvantage due to the fact that the Delhi HC judgment is available on a Google search to any potential employer. Despite a good academic record, he is unable to get any employment due to this.
Noting that the right to privacy includes ‘right to be forgotten’, the judge barred search engines from accessing the judgment.
Delhi HC, 2022: woman’s personal details.
January 31, 2022: The Times of India
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: Delhi High Court has asked a website to consider removing from its interface a trial court judgment related to a matrimonial dispute, pending a decision on a woman’s plea for invoking the right to be forgotten.
Justice Kameswar Rao issued a notice and sought response from the Centre, Google and India Kanoon, which is a search engine for Indian law, on the woman’s plea urging the court to restrain India Kanoon from sharing the 2018 trial court judgment related to her case. The court fixed the matter for further hearing on February 17, when several other similar petitions involving the question of the right to be forgotten are also listed. “Since I have issued notice to respondent no. 2 (India Kanoon) for February 17, when other pending matters are listed, appropriate shall be that upon receiving the notice, respondent no. 2 may consider removing the judgment of the trial court passed in 2018,” the court noted, issuing the notice and posting the matter.
The court was hearing a plea by a woman who was involved in a matrimonial dispute and was aggrieved bythe availability and accessibility of the judgment on engine Google. The woman contended in her plea that the judgment on the website included her personal details. Last month, the Centre had in a separate plea informed the high court that in order to protect citizens’ privacy, it has brought out the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019, which contains provisions related to the doctrine of the right to be forgotten. It, however, clarified that it is for respective platforms to consider removing judgmentsor orders on the request of the affected party.
Redaction of person’s name from judgements on acquittal
K Kaushik, July 17, 2021: The Times of India
Invoking an individual’s right to privacy and the right to be forgotten, the Madras HC has observed that a person’s name should be redacted from judgments if s/he is acquitted in a criminal case as a Google search can make or mar a person’s character, reports K Kaushik. The court was hearing the plea of a man who was convicted of rape and cheating, but subsequently acquitted of all charges.
When the right applies and when It does not
June 2, 2026: The Times of India
New Delhi : In a landmark ruling, Delhi HC has recognised the “right to be forgotten” as an “integral facet” of the right to privacy, saying individuals cannot be condemned to suffer harm to their reputation merely because information about them remains indefinitely available in the digital domain.
HC said search engines such as Google cannot be perpetually permitted to show judicial records in name-based searches for cases that are private in nature or have ended in acquittal, discharge, quashing or settlement. It underlined that continued association of a person’s name with allegations in the digital space may inflict disproportionate harm on dignity and reputation.
The “shadow of crime” should not be allowed to replace the “shadow of dignity” after the legal process has vindicated a person, it said.
“The right to be forgotten, understood as subsuming the right of an individual to seek removal or restriction of personal information from public digital accessibility, where such information is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate purpose, flows naturally and necessarily from the constitutional recognition of informational privacy under Article 21,” Justice Sachin Dutta noted in an order passed last week and made available now.
Court granted relief to a batch of petitioners and directed authorities, search engine operators and legal database platforms to de-index and disable their “namebased search functionality” in respect of judgments, orders and news articles concerning those who had a favourable end to court proceedings.
It noted that informational privacy means the right of a person to decide what information about them is disclosed, to whom, and for what purpose. Justice Dutta, however, made it clear that de-indexing would not apply in cases involving convictions for offences against women or children, offences involving breach of public trust, or cases involving public servants and elected representatives.
The verdict, delivered on a batch of more than 30 petitions, made a distinction in certain cases. HC refused relief to PP Madhva, who sought de-indexing after a settlement in a sexual offence case. It held there was a continuing public interest in the accessibility of proceedings touching upon serious allegations against a public figure.
Similarly, it declined relief to reality show celebrity Ashutosh Kaushik, who sought removal of posts, videos and articles depicting incidents of drunken behaviour, saying the “right to be forgotten” is not a mechanism for the “selective erasure” of a public figure’s past conduct.
HC also observed that since the fundamental right to informational privacy is not limited by territory, de-indexing must operate globally. It noted that search engines are commercial platforms that generate revenue through user searches and that IT rules oblige intermediaries to comply with orders directing removal or restriction of content.
HC directed Google and other search engine operators to de-index relevant content where relief had been granted and asked the Centre, through ministry of electronics & information technology, to ensure compliance within two weeks.
HC: Criminal justice system not at level where accused’s name can be redacted
K Kaushik, August 4, 2021: The Times of India
Redact= censor or obscure (part of a text) for legal or security purposes
Dismissing a plea moved by a man seeking to redact his name from a judgment of the Madras high court that acquitted him in a criminal case, the HC observed that “this court honestly feels that our criminal justice system is yet to reach such standards where courts can venture to pass orders for redaction of name of an accused person on certain objective criteria prescribed by rules or regulations”.
“This court must take judicial notice of the fact that the criminal justice system that is prevalent in this country is far from satisfactory. In various cases involving heinous crimes, this court helplessly passes orders and judgments of acquittal due to slipshod investigation, dishonest witnesses and lack of an effective witness protection system,” observed Justice N Anand Venkatesh.
The judge observed that though this court came to a prima facie conclusion that an accused person is entitled to have his name redacted from the judgments or orders and more particularly the ones that are available in the public domain and which are accessible through search engines. However, on a deeper review of the issue, this court has taken cognisance of the fact that the same is not as simple and straight as it sounded. This court felt that there may be ramifications if such a generalised order is passed and directions are issued.
The judge observed that during the course of deliberation, the attention of the court was drawn to various foreign judgments and also the relevant regulations and enactments of those countries which specifically provides for expunction, expungement, redaction or destruction of criminal records.
“No such rule or regulation exists in India for the present. In the absence of any statutory backing, this court cannot undertake the exercise of issuing directions when no judicially manageable standards exist in the first place. There must be a proper policy formulated in this regard by means of specific rules. In other words, some basic criteria or parameters must be fixed, failing which, such an exercise will lead to utter confusion,” observed the judge.
The judge observed that it will be more appropriate to await the enactment of the Data Protection Act and Rules thereunder, which may provide an objective criterion while dealing with the plea of redaction of names of accused persons who are acquitted from criminal proceedings. “If such uniform standards are not followed across the country, the constitutional courts will be riding an unruly horse which will prove to be counterproductive to the existing system,” observed the judge.
Right to privacy includes right to be forgotten: HC
Abhinav Garg, August 21, 2021: The Times of India
Recognising that the right to privacy includes the right to be forgotten and to be left alone, Delhi high court has ordered various online platforms, including YouTube, to remove explicit videos and audio clips of a Bengali actress, reports Abhinav Garg.
“In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the plaintiff (actress) is entitled ‘to be left alone’ and ‘to be forgotten’, she is entitled to protection from invasion of her privacy by strangers and anonymous callers on account of such publication/streaming/ transmission of the suit videos by the defendants,” Justice Asha Menon stated in her order. The actress has filed a suit seeking restraint on publication and streaming of her objectionable videos on URLs and sites.
‘Personality of actress exhibited against will’
The high court also noted that while there is no statutory ‘right to be forgotten’, in view of the facts of the case where her explicit video clips are being circulated, there is a clear and immediate effect on the woman’s reputation, requiring the grant of interim protection. It added that the right to privacy of the actress has to be protected, especially when it is her personality that is being exhibited and against her will.
The Bengali actress has filed a suit seeking restraint on publication and streaming of her objectionable videos on various URLs, websites, mobile applications and online platforms portraying her in a manner that infringes her privacy.
The woman claimed that she is a well-known actor, particularly in Bengali films, and had been approached by a production house for filming a webseries. On the promise made to the woman of giving her the lead role in the web-series, she was lured into participating in a demonstration video/trailer, consisting of explicit scenes. However, the project fell through and the web-series was never produced.
Last year, the woman came across the videos that had been uploaded by the producer on his YouTube channel and website, but on her request, the producer removed the clips, the plea added. Without her consent, various websites uploaded the videos and some of them also superimposed objectionable and obscene commentaries on them, it said.
The high court also relied upon the new Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which mandates intermediaries, including search engines, to remove or disable access to content upon receipt of a complaint made by any individual/person in relation to any content that shows the individual in partial or full nudity or in some sexual act or conduct.
“She has clearly stated in the plaint that the producer had taken the videos down. If others were circulating the same for monetary and other prurient benefits, the plaintiff cannot be denied any relief,” the court said.
See also
Right to be forgotten: India
