Right To Be Forgotten | Upholding Acquittal Of POCSO Act Accused, HP High Court Directs Masking Of Names Of Parties In Digital Records

A bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja emphasized that the right to privacy, encompassing the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone, is an inherent aspect of personal liberty.

This ruling came in response to a plea by the State Government seeking a grant of leave to appeal against an order of the Trial Court acquitting the accused-appellant.

The Court noted that in the instant case, the victim was more than 17 years of age as of the alleged offence. She later married the accused, gave birth to a daughter, and started residing together with her husband (accused).

Further, the Court also noted that the prosecution could not establish its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The 'SM' (victim) could have been the best witness to have supported the case of the prosecution. But, unfortunately, she was never examined by the prosecution, in this case. There was no reason forthcoming for the same. Obviously, in such circumstances, this Court has no option but to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution,” the Court remarked.

The Court also opined that since the prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution's case and admitted that she had married the respondent and has a three-year-old daughter out of this wedlock, there was no occasion for the State to file the present appeal.

“…this Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix,” the Court observed.

Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed the state's application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

However, before concluding the case, the Court emphasized the accused's right to be forgotten, stating that once an individual is acquitted through legal processes, they should not be burdened with the stigma of being accused for their entire life.

“…once an accused gets blame-free by a process of law, the respondent cannot be seen to be carrying sword of his being accused for all his life. Right to oblivion; right to be forgotten are the principles evolved by the democratic nations, as one of the facets of right to information privacy. The rights have been evolved in the countries like France and Italy way back in the 19th century,” the Court said.

“…there can be no dispute that right of privacy of which the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone are inherent aspects. Once that be so, obviously, the names of the prosecutrix as also the appellant need to be masked/erased so that they do not appear/visible in any search engine, least the same is likely to jeopardize and cause irreparable hardship, prejudice etc., not only to the respondent and the prosecutrix, but to their little daughter in their day-today life, career prospects etc. etc,” the Court further noted.

Accordingly, the Court directed the removal of the appellant's and prosecutrix's names from the database of the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur. The Court also directed the Registrar General to mask the appellant's name in the digital records pertaining to the instant appeal.

Case title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs XYZ