Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a petition seeking the redaction of the petitioner's name from the e-courts portal. The matter pertained to an FIR under Sections 384 and 419 of IPC along with Sections 66-C and 67 of the Information Technology Act. The Court observed the significance of the right to privacy and the potential reputational harm caused by online case records.
The petitioner, a corporate professional with extensive experience in leading global firms, was implicated in an FIR registered at Cyber Cell West, Gurugram. The allegations revolved around an alleged offense involving a disputed sum of Rs. 3,000. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The High Court later quashed the FIR, following which the trial court discharged the surety provided at the time of bail. However, despite the closure of the case, the petitioner's name continued to appear on the e-courts portal, which allegedly hindered his professional prospects.
The petitioner's counsel argued that despite the quashing of the FIR and discharge of sureties, the continued presence of his name on the portal caused irreparable harm to his career. Given the nature of his profession, the petitioner sought employment opportunities in India and abroad, but the online availability of the case details posed a major obstacle. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., it was contended that the right to privacy extends to reputation, and individuals should not be perpetually judged based on past accusations, particularly when acquitted or exonerated.
The Court extensively referred to the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy emphasized that individuals should have the ability to move forward without being perpetually tied to past allegations. It was noted that the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enshrines the “right to be forgotten,” allowing individuals to seek erasure of irrelevant or unnecessary personal data. The Court also considered a precedent set by the Delhi High Court in ABC v. State, affirming that privacy rights include the right to be forgotten, particularly in cases where criminal proceedings are quashed.
Recognizing the potential adverse effects on the petitioner's personal and professional life, the High Court directed the concerned authorities to remove his name from the e-courts portal. The judgment reaffirmed that individuals acquitted or exonerated in criminal cases should not suffer undue hardships due to the continued online presence of their case records.
Picture Source :