No Public Interest In Keeping Information Alive On Internet After Quashing Of FIR: Delhi High Court On Right To Be Forgotten

Observing that it is important to balance the right to information of public with an individual's right to privacy, the Delhi High Court has said that no public interest can be served by keeping the information alive on the internet after quashing of criminal proceedings.

“There is no reason why an individual who has been duly cleared of any guilt by law should be allowed to be haunted by the remnants of such accusations easily accessible to the public. Such would be contrary to the individual's right to privacy which includes the right to be forgotten, and the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Amit Mahajan observed.

The Court said that the concept of right to privacy incorporates the right to be forgotten and that in the age of internet, every piece of information that finds its way to the internet gains permanence.

“The need to allow the masking of names of individuals acquitted of any offence or when criminal proceedings against such persons are quashed, emanates from the most basic notions of proportionality and fairness,” the Court said.

It added that while access to information is a fundamental aspect of democracy, the same cannot be divorced from the need to balance the right to information of the public with the individual's right to privacy.

This is especially when after the quashing of the proceedings, no public interest can be served by keeping the information alive on the internet, the Court said.

Justice Mahajan was dealing with a plea moved by a man seeking directions upon the Court Registry to mask his name from the orders and pleadings filed in a criminal case.

His counsel submitted that irreparable prejudice will be caused to him, his social life and his career prospects if his name is indicated as a person involved in criminal case despite the fact that the case against him had been quashed.

It was argued that he was entitled to protection under 'right to privacy' and the 'right to be forgotten' which have been well defined and also recognised as a fundamental right.

Since the proceedings against the man were quashed, the Court found merit in his counsel's arguments and directed the Registry to remove his name as well as the name of the complainant from the records of the case and its search results.

The Court also permitted him to approach all concerned portals, public search engines to mask the judgment insofar who shall only indicate the masked names of the parties.

Justice Mahajan also said that whenever the man or the complainant would apply or approach any of the social media or search engines, it is expected that they would also follow the principle of 'right to privacy' and 'right to be forgotten' and remove any other material which may be on the record pertaining to the criminal case.

Title: ABC v. State & ANR. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1272