New Delhi: Recognizing the ‘right to privacy’ as part of the ‘right to privacy’, the Supreme Court on 18 July ordered Its Registry to devise a mechanism for deletion of personal details of litigants involved in matrimonial litigation.
A bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul saw merit in the woman’s plea, which held that her personal information, such as her husband’s name and residential address, should either be omitted or concealed from the judgment of her case. which has now been uploaded on the SC website, from where it has been shared with different online platforms. The woman’s name is already masked.
In the case, the wife had claimed that she was a victim of rape and also accused her husband of spreading “infection of life-threatening disease”. The woman lost her case before both the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, which had dismissed the rape charges on the ground that “husbands were exempt from law against the said offence”.
Even though the two judgments concealed her identity, her husband’s was revealed, allowing acquaintances to link him to the case. She told the bench, it is causing her “great harm” through social stigma. Such public visibility was an infringement of his right to privacy, which includes the right to be forgotten.
Her petition for the right to be forgotten in the SC was supported by her husband. The woman’s lawyer said that every time someone enters keywords like ‘marital dispute’, ‘sexual offence’ or any other related term on the search engine, the court’s ruling comes out.
The woman has already filed a similar petition before the Karnataka High Court.
This case is one of the many petitions filed on the issue of ‘right to be forgotten’.
Recognized as an aspect of the right to privacy in a landmark 2017 judgment KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India Case in point, this right has come into play of late in several cases filed in various High Courts across India.
In most of these cases, with few exceptions, the petitioners have got interim relief.
Meanwhile, in batch of petitions Pending before the Delhi High Court, Google India recently argued that the right to be forgotten can have different “shapes and colours”, arguing that blanket orders cannot be passed in cases where This right has been demanded.
ThePrint examines the right to be forgotten, its origins, past orders and conflicting court decisions on this contentious issue.
Read also: Do you have a ‘right to be forgotten’? Here’s what it means and how Indian courts see it
right to delete
The right to be forgotten refers to the right to have personal information removed from the Internet in certain circumstances. it goes on Base That a person should decide the course of his life autonomously, without being ‘stigmatized’ by past action.
After this it has got steam in India KS Puttaswamy Vs Union Decision.
Right to privacy is implicitly recognized in Article 21 (right to life and liberty). In puttaswamyThe Supreme Court had noted the existence of such a right. Referring to a rule that allowed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to retain authentication transaction data for six months and store it for five years, the court noted infringement of such right.
“The right of a citizen to erase or forget the data is severely affected by such regulation,” the Supreme Court ruling said.
As this issue has gained more attention, with the ever-increasing use of technology in all sectors, the proposed personal data protection bill Introduces the concept of the right to be forgotten. The draft law envisages creation of an authority where one can apply to restrict the dissemination of information which is private in nature and sensitive, affecting one’s life.
internationally, General Data Protection Regulation The European Union regulates how personal data must be collected, processed and erased. The right to be forgotten, which received a lot of press after 2014 Holocaust From the EU Court of Justice – which said Google must delete “insufficient, irrelevant or no longer relevant” data if requested – set precedent for the right to erasure provisions contained in the regulation.
‘Size and colour, different positions’
Since the right to be forgotten can impact the “right to information” – an equally important right for the larger public interest or legitimate needs of the state – online platforms have argued that the former may not be available to all individuals under all circumstances. could.
On Wednesday, Google India argued before a bench of Justice Yashwant Verma that there are various ‘shapes and colours’ of such a right.
Senior advocate Arvind Nigam, appearing for Google India, argued that the application of the right to be forgotten differs from case to case and a gray area still exists between the two rights – to privacy and to be forgotten. Therefore, subtle application of matter was required.
acquitted but tainted
The Delhi High Court has seized several petitions where individuals have approached the court seeking deletion of their details from various social media platforms.
The corporation spoke of the Delhi HC’s 2021 decision, which, he said, had a ‘snowballing effect’.
in 2021 CaseOne Zorawar Singh Mundi had sought the quashing of a verdict in a case in which he was eventually acquitted from the internet.
Mundi, a US-Indian national, was charged in 2009 with an offense under the stringent anti-drug law, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985. He was later cleared of all charges in 2011.
However, he argued that despite having an excellent academic record, he was unable to secure employment due to the presence of online judgements.
Deciding on his plea, Justice Pratibha Singh had observed that the issue required an examination of the interplay between the petitioner’s right to privacy and the public’s right to information as well as maintenance of judicial records.
However, due to the irreparable injury caused to Mundi, Justice Singh granted him interim protection, ordering the removal of the judgment from Indian law, Google and the website famous for the decision.
Since then, the Delhi HC’s decision has been frequently cited before various high courts where petitioners have sought removal of such details from the internet.
consider another decision Before the Orissa High Court from 2020. In the case of sharing of intimate photographs, the High Court had used the analogy of a toothpaste to describe the information flow.
“Indeed, information in the public domain is like toothpaste. Once it is out of the tube one cannot bring it back and once the information is made public it will never go away,” it had said.
Condoling the lack of the right to be forgotten, the Court had sought such a right.
In this sequence, another decision from 2021, this time Kerala High Courtallowed removal of such personal details from Google search results.
Read also: Bigg Boss winner’s plea shows ‘right to be forgotten’ cannot be seen on case-to-case basis
‘Cannot be modified’
Interestingly, not all High Courts have decided on this subject equally.
last years decision The Madras High Court held that the name of a person cannot be changed by his judgment posted online despite his acquittal.
In the matter before the HC, the petitioner had sought to quash his name with the judgment and orders of the court. The Madras HC had initially allowed the appeal, with the view that the accused, on acquittal, was entitled to have his name modified.
However, ultimately, the judge held that such a right to be forgotten cannot exist when it comes to the decisions of the court.
The conflicting judgments of such High Courts may eventually need to be resolved by the Supreme Court, especially in the light of the Court’s decision. KS Puttaswamy Case,
Akshat Jain is a student of National Law University, Delhi and intern at ThePrint
(Edited by Jinnia Ray Chowdhury)