Right To Be Forgotten: Kerala High Court Seeks Response Of HC Registry, Google & Indian Kanoon On Plea To Mask Identity In Online Judgment
The Kerala High Court on Monday considered a plea moved by petitioners who were arrayed as first and second accused in a criminal case which was later settled amicably between the parties. The petitioners stated that the FIR was quashed vide a judgment of the Court in the year 2012. They allege that the judgment of the Court with their names were available on the High Court website as well as...
The Kerala High Court on Monday considered a plea moved by petitioners who were arrayed as first and second accused in a criminal case which was later settled amicably between the parties. The petitioners stated that the FIR was quashed vide a judgment of the Court in the year 2012. They allege that the judgment of the Court with their names were available on the High Court website as well as on websites like Indian Kanoon violating their right to privacy and right to live with dignity.
Justice Devan Ramachandran issued notice and sought response from the High Court administration, Indian Kanoon and Google India. The Registrar General (High Court of Kerala) is arrayed as the first respondent, Registrar of Grievance Redressal (Appellate) Authority (Privacy of Parties) (High Court of Kerala) is arrayed as the second respondent, Indian Kanoon is the third respondent and Google India is the fourth respondent.
The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the quashing of the FIR by the Court as early as 2012, the identity of the petitioners was still visible in the judgment which is available on the High Court website as well as on Indian Kanoon. The petitioners preferred representations before the Chief Executive Officer of India Kanoon for masking their identities and their request was rejected citing their website policy as the reason. The petitioners also preferred representations before the High Court administration for masking their names. The registry of the High Court dismissed their request and stated that the request for masking names has to be pursued by judicial remedy.
The petitioners submitted that quashing the FIR in their names had put an end to criminal proceedings, but the availability of their identities in judgment affects their social well-being and right to live with dignity. It was submitted that no public interest was served by retaining the copies of judgment in multiple digital platforms for eternity and was violative of their right to be forgotten.
The petitioners rely upon the Division bench decision of the Court in Vyskh K.G. v Union of India (2023) wherein the Court allowed masking names of parties in family and matrimonial cases based on their right to be forgotten. It was also argued that the Delhi High Court in Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan v. Quintillion Business Media (P) Ltd. (2019) has recognized the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone as essential facets of the right to privacy.
The plea further stated that the availability of judgments on online digital platforms without masking their identities is a transgression to their as well as their family’s right to live with dignity and privacy.
The petitioners have thus sought for removal of their identities from the judgment available on the High Court website as well as from India Kanoon.
The petition is moved by Petitioner Advocates Raghul Sudheesh, J.Lakshmi, Elizabeth Mathew , Bini Das, Dharsana A. and Aravind Sankar.M
Case number: WP (C) No. 39389/2023