LI Network
Published on: 27 July 2023 at 12:37 IST
The Gujarat High Court has recently highlighted the importance of media transparency and its potential impact on an individual’s reputation. In a hearing presided over by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice NV Anjaria, the court emphasized that once a First Information Report (FIR) is quashed, media outlets should remove any news articles related to the lodging of the FIR.
The case involved an NRI businessman who had been named in an FIR filed in October 2020. Represented by Advocate Virat Popat, the businessman requested that the Times of India (TOI) remove the URLs of the articles concerning the FIR, citing a violation of his “right to be forgotten” due to ongoing circulation of these articles.
TOI’s lawyer, Advocate KM Antani, argued in defense of press freedom and urged the court to consider the implications of any order on media operations.
Chief Justice Agarwal stated that once an FIR is quashed, it no longer holds any validity. However, if media outlets continue to circulate articles about the quashed FIR, it could create a false impression that a criminal case is still pending against the person involved, thus harming their reputation and goodwill. The court firmly expressed that the press cannot claim immunity in such matters.
The NRI businessman had previously issued legal notices to The Indian Express, TOI, and Google, demanding the removal of all articles mentioning his name in connection with the FIR after its quashing in December 2022. However, the news outlets responded evasively, leading to the current appeal in the High Court.
During the hearing, Popat referred to the Supreme Court’s stance in the Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, where it was established that the “right to be forgotten” is an aspect of the “right to privacy.”
The court suggested that the parties involved could amicably resolve the dispute by having the news media houses remove the articles in question. However, Antani pointed out that the media had also published articles about the FIR’s quashing, leading to a discussion about the importance of deleting the initial articles to avoid confusion and reputational harm.
Chief Justice Agarwal asserted that the press, in exercising its freedom, must also be accountable and transparent about the information it publishes for the public. The court adjourned the matter, giving the parties an opportunity to resolve the issue among themselves.