Right to Forget; Man having Difficulties Finding Work, Because of an Order: Bombay HC Orders its Removal from Court Website

Apr14,2022 #Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Law Insider

Khushi Doshi

Published on: April 14, 2022 at 08:10 IST

The Bombay High Court previously Ordered the Removal of an Acquittal Order from the Court’s Website in Response to a Petition filed by a person/accused who was having difficulty finding work as a Result of the Acquittal decision granted in his favour.

Essentially, he had approached the Court, stating that while the Ruling was one of Acquittal, it was nonetheless Descriptive, and it had the potential to skew the minds of his prospective Employers, Customers, Lenders, and Investors.

At the outset, the Bench of Justices G. S. Patel and Madhav J. Jamdar referred to it as a matter of great importance in terms of the Right to Privacy or the Right to be Forgotten.

The Court further alluded to the Supreme Court’s decision in KS Puttaswamy (Retd) And Anr Vs. Union of India And Ors’ in this respect (Puttaswamy-II).

It should be highlighted that the Puttaswamy Case acknowledges the Right to Privacy as a component of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Court did, however, clarify that no such Order in a specific instance may ever serve as a Precedent for any subsequent Order or Case.

The Court also said unequivocally that the Case’s Original records will be handled in line with the Rules regulating the destruction of Documents in the regular Course. Finally, the Court instructed, with extreme care, that if anybody wants Access to such Data, the request would be handled in accordance with the Customary Rules and Processes in that Respect, including the production of an Affidavit by the Applicant indicating precisely why such access is necessary.

With this, the Court disregarded the Ruling and Ordered that it not be posted on the Court’s Website. The Petitioner was represented by Attorneys Rahul Singh and Prashant Mali. Sukanta Karmakar, AGP represented the Respondent-State. Respondent No. 3 was represented by Advocate Sanjay Udeshi.

Related Post