Madras High Court on Exploring the Boundaries of Privacy in Public Judgments (Right to be forgotten)

Case Description 

Karthick Theodore v. Madras High Court 

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court 

Case Type: Writ Appeal 

Case No.: W.A.(MD) No.1901 of 2021 

Date of Order: 27.02.2024 

Bench: Anita Sumanth, J. & R. Vijayakumar, J. (authored by Anita Sumanth, J) 

Facts 

1. The appellant faced criminal proceedings under Section 417 (cheating) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and had been convicted by trial court. Later, High Court reversed the judgement and acquitted him of all the charges.  

2. Post acquittal, the appellant got married and had three children.  

3. One day, while he was on the High Court’s website, he found the judgement concerning him which had personally identifiable information that would reveal his identity.  

4. He approached the court to get protection for the intimate details of his past through their redactions on the judgement available on the public domain. He argued that this information was affecting his ability to get visa and is violating his right to privacy. 

5. However, the court rejected his petition. Aggrieved the order of dismissal, the appellant filed the current writ appeal.  

Issues 

1. Whether a person who has been accused of an offence and then been acquitted of all charges by competent court has the right to seek redaction/erasure of their personal information available on public domain? 

Laws Involved 

1. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution 

2. IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021  

3. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) 

Appellant’s Arguments 

1. In the case of K.S.Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2017) 10 SCC 1], the Supreme Court held right to privacy as being an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The appellant submitted that the right to forgotten is part of right to privacy.  

2. The appellant argued that he was entitled to get his name and identity legally redacted from the judgement and placed reliance on the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.  He submitted that the presence of his personal information on the judgement long after his acquittal has negatively impacted his reputation in the society. 

3. Furthermore, the appellant cited cases like XYZ Hospital [(1988 8 SCC 296)] and Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India V. Subhash Chandra Agarwal [(2020) 5 SCC 481] to highlight the instances when the Supreme Court had opted for the procedure of masking personal information and has protected an individual’s right to privacy. 

4. Lastly, the appellant distinguished his plea for anonymity from the kind sought by victims of abuse. He clarified that he was declared innocent by the court and the judgement had obtained finality. Hence, there was no justification for the stain on his image to persist. 

5. The appellant was denied relief earlier as the court referred to the case of Rup Ashok Hurra V. Ashok Hurra [(2002) 4 SCC 388]. In this regard, the appellant argued that his petition was brought as a mandamus while that in the mentioned case was brought as certiorari. 

Respondent’s Arguments 

1. The respondent submitted that appellant’s prayers were rejected on the ground that High Court is a Court of Record and in the absence of specific Rules, it could not grant mandamus. Thus, the previous writ petition was held to be non-maintainable. 

2. Moreover, the respondent relied on R.Rajagopal V. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994 6 SCC 632)] where the court had observed that right to privacy was subject to the exception that where publication is based on public records, no objections can be raised. Court records are part of public records.  

3. The counsel for respondent also referred to Section 327 of the CrPC whereby public has open and transparent access to courts and their judgements.  

4. Lastly, the respondent highlighted effects of information put in public domain by citing Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul V. State of Odissa [2020 SCC OnLine Ori 878] where the court observed that information released on public domain is like squeezed toothpaste, i.e., impossible to put back in the tube.  

Court’s Analysis 

1. The Hon’ble Bench analysed several sections of the DPDP Act and concluded Section 17(1)(b) creates an exemption for Section 8(7)— that speaks of erasure of personal data— and renders the latter as non-applicable on judicial bodies. In simpler words, as per the Act, courts cannot be persuaded into erasing personal data on the ground of lack of consent or fulfilment of the information’s intended purpose. 

2. The Bench referred to Chandran Somasundaram Vs. Principal Director of Income Tax, Coimbatore and ors [(2023) 450 ITR 188] and opined that courts have sufficient inherent powers to redact personal information where necessary and do not require external support. While the DPDP Act does not provide it power to erase, there is nothing that prevents the courts from providing such relief to deserving people on being convinced. 

3. Moreover, it held that courts cannot be compelled to share any information in public domain subject to compulsions imposed by RTI Act and the interest of public access to justice. But the courts are expected to balance between collection of data required to perform its functions and protection of collected personal data. 

4. It was held that ‘Right to be Forgotten’ or ‘Right to be remembered well’ cannot be denied to a person if the facts and circumstances so require it. Hence, the Bench was of the view that redaction of information from certified copies, issued for public certification, should be enabled in appropriate situations. 

5. The Court also referred to the case of X V. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC Online SC 279] where the Supreme Court asked for redacting of the appellant’s name for protection of their identity. It also passed a general direction for sensitive instances where matters are to be returned to the counsel for redacting the name of the appellant/prosecutrix before listing, if names are revealed.  

6. Further, the probability of maintaining the original judgement in record of courts whilst masking information in published/uploaded copies was discussed to create a balance between open justice system (as established in Swapnil Tripathi V. Supreme Court of India [(2018 (10) SCC 639)]) and privacy concern of a citizen (reference to K.S. Puttaswamy). 

Conclusion 

1. The Bench concluded that courts have a wide discretion in deciding whether disclosure must be preferred to redaction, and such discretion can be exercised either at the request of the parties or (in some situations) suo moto by the court. 

2. Appellant’s writ appeal was thus allowed. 

3. The Court directed the respondents to take down judgement copies with appellant’s name and personal information and ensure only copies with such information redacted is available for publication or uploading. However, it was held that the unredacted version of the judgement would continue to remain part of court records.  

Authored by – Ayush Bardhan, Paralegal, The Legal Swan