Right To Be Forgotten : Kerala High Court Formulating Information Management Policy To Mask Personal Information In Judgments

The Kerala High Court on Thursday declared that it was in the process of drafting an Information Management Policy which could possibly address the issue of masking of the parties' names in its orders and judgments. 

A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas announced so while adjudicating upon a batch of seven petitions seeking the remedy of masking their names in different cases dispised of by this court. The matter has been listed on April 1 for further consideration.  

One of the petitions concerns a woman who had previously filed a petition before the High Court seeking that the Sub-Registrar accept her application for marriage to an American citizen of Indian origin. The Court had ruled in her favour, but the marriage did not take place after differences arose between the couple.

Later, she had moved the Court again praying for the removing, masking or disguising of her name in cause title arguing that the Indian Kanoon's judgment in the previous case with her name was appearing search results on Google.

According to her, this was causing substantial prejudice, damaging her prospects of marriage and victimisation by friends and relatives. Other petitioners in the case have similar grievances. 

It has been submitted that the publication of names in the cause title of the judgment infringes personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents had, however, argued that the High Court is a court of record and in the absence of any special safeguard all judgments and orders of the High Court form part of the public record. 

They further contended that the publication of names and other details in the order or judgment does not infringe one's right to privacy, the only exemption being with victims of a sexual offence, in view of the social object of preventing social victimisation.

After hearing both sides, in May 2021, Justice Anil K Narendran had referred the question of whether parties in a proceeding that did not involve public interest could seek the masking of their names to a Division Bench since he was informed that there were similar matters pending decision therein.

Upon referring to the law on privacy and the right to be forgotten, the Single Judge had prima facie opined that the public did not have a fundamental or legal right to intrude into the personal life of the individuals who are parties to such proceedings or to impinge upon their right to privacy.

Meanwhile, the Judge instructed the Registry to mask the name of the petitioner from the cause title in the interim.

Case Title: xxx v. Union of India and connected matters.