‘’Humans forget, but the internet does not forget and does not let humans forget.’’ Karnataka High Court directs accused name to be masked in Court’s digital records upon his acquittal/discharge.

 Mr. XXX vs The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and others. 

Writ Petition 25557 of 2023 decided on 28 February 2024
Justice Nagaprasanna. 

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the Registry of this Court to remove the name of the petitioner from the digital records maintained in Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021 and not to reflect the name of the petitioner in relation to Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021.

5. The issue in the lis does not concern merit of the crime. The petitioner is knocking at the doors of this Court, on the ground that when the name of the petitioner is clicked on any search engine, it reveals him to be an accused in the aforesaid crime and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021. It is, therefore, the petitioner seeks masking of his name in the digital records of this Court.

10. The law in this regard cannot be termed to be static, but dynamic. Dynamic, I deem it necessary to observe, as it should evolve like evolution of the Constitution of India, which is a dynamic document. A facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is that every citizen in the country should have a life with dignity; the dignity does get trampled on account of various acts of a citizen. Those acts are punishable after a due process of law. If the result of due process of law is absolving of any person of alleged guilt, those persons become the ones who would get a right to live with dignity, having no blame against them. 

11. This Court, in plethora of cases, comes about issues where crimes are registered without any rhyme or reason and lead to quashment of those proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., sometimes on the sole score that it was frivolous or an act of wreaking vengeance, inter alia. It is therefore, after the accused gets blame-free by a process of law, he cannot be seen to be carrying the sword of him being accused on his head, for all his life. Right to oblivion; right to be forgotten are the principles evolved by the democratic nations, as one being a facet of right to informational privacy. Countries like France and Italy, had by themselves evolved the concept of right to oblivion, which dates back to 19th century. Europe, in the European Union has, over privacy and personal data, evolved the principle of right to be forgotten, as a right to be a part of ones right to personality, which encompasses dignity, honour and right to a private life. The aforesaid principles evolved from time to time, can be paraphrased into what could become right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY(RETD) v. UNION OF INDIA1 . The Apex Court considers various facets of privacy; one such privacy is informational privacy. 

The Apex Court considers the entire spectrum the right to privacy and the ‘right to be forgotten’ evolved in the European Union Regulation of 2016, by the European Parliament. The Apex Court recognizes the right to be forgotten to be a basic right under the right to informational privacy. It has observed the right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and, to be able to control his or her own life would encompass his right to control over its existence on the internet. The Apex Court observes that the impact of digital age results in information on the internet being permanent. Humans forget, but the internet does not forget and does not let humans forget. Therefore, the soul of the judgment of the Apex Court quoted supra is that the footprints in certain circumstances should not be permitted to remain, as it is an anti-thesis to right to be forgotten.  

14. Evolving this concept of a right to be forgotten or right to erasure have been the subject matter of the Personal Data Protection Bills notified from time to time. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 recognizes the right to be forgotten. Likewise, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 also recognizes the right to correction and erasure. The Government of India notifies the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, on 11th August, 2023, to come into force from the date of its publication in the official gazette. The Act also recognizes the right of erasure of personal data. The aforesaid are referred only to lay emphasis, on the fact that the law in this regard is also evolving in the country.

16. The Queen’s Bench declines to accept the contentions of Google for delisting the name of the accused therein. The claim of the appellant before the Queen’s Bench, on an allegation of misuse of private information succeeded. The distilled essence of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court and the judgment of the Delhi High Court, as also that of the judgment of Queen’s Bench all quoted supra would mean that, even an accused who has been discharged or acquitted honourably by a competent Court of law has a right to live with dignity.

17. Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with law. The expression ‘life’ cannot be seem to connote a mere animal existence, it has a much wider meaning. It takes within its sweep right to live with dignity. In the crime, once the accused gets acquitted - honourably, discharged by a competent Court of law, or this Court would quash those crimes in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and those orders become final, the shadow of crime, if permitted to continue in place of shadow of dignity, on any citizen, it would be travesty of the concept of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every citizen born in this nation, governed by the Constitution, has a right to live with dignity. What is being sought for, is masking of the name of the petitioner in the cause title of the case found in the records of this Court.

Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka is directed to mask the name of the petitioner in its digital records pertaining to Criminal Petition No.8172 of 2021 forthwith.