LI Network
Published on: November 28, 2023 at IST 13:23 IST
The Kerala High Court has taken cognizance of a plea put forth by individuals previously listed as the first and second accused in a criminal case, which was subsequently amicably settled between the involved parties.
The petitioners assert that, despite the court’s 2012 judgment quashing the First Information Report (FIR), their names continue to be publicly accessible on the High Court’s website and platforms like Indian Kanoon, thereby infringing upon their right to privacy and the right to live with dignity.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has issued a notice, calling for responses from the High Court administration, Indian Kanoon, and Google India.
The respondents include the Registrar General (High Court of Kerala), the Registrar of Grievance Redressal (Appellate) Authority (Privacy of Parties) (High Court of Kerala), Indian Kanoon, and Google India.
The petitioners contend that, despite the FIR being quashed in 2012, their identities persist in the judgment accessible on the High Court’s website and Indian Kanoon. Attempts to secure anonymity through representations to Indian Kanoon were rebuffed, citing the website’s policy.
Similar requests made to the High Court administration were dismissed, with the registry advising the pursuit of a judicial remedy.
The petitioners argue that while the FIR’s quashing marked the end of criminal proceedings, the continued visibility of their identities in the judgment adversely affects their social well-being and right to live with dignity. They posit that retaining copies of judgments on various digital platforms indefinitely, without serving any public interest, violates their right to be forgotten.
Citing a Division bench decision in Vyskh K.G. v Union of India (2023), where the Court allowed the masking of names in family and matrimonial cases based on the right to be forgotten, the petitioners also refer to the Delhi High Court’s recognition of the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone in Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan v. Quintillion Business Media (P) Ltd. (2019).
The plea underscores that the unrestricted availability of judgments on online platforms, without concealing identities, constitutes an infringement of both the petitioners’ and their families’ rights to live with dignity and privacy.
Consequently, the petitioners seek the removal of their identities from the judgment on the High Court website and Indian Kanoon.