Accused Who Has Been Acquitted/Discharged Has Right To Live With Dignity: Karnataka HC Directs For Party's Name To Be Masked In Court's Digital Records

The Karnataka High Court while directing the registry to mask the name of an accused in the cause title of the case found in the records of the court has observed that “even an accused who has been discharged or acquitted honourably by a competent Court of law has a right to live with dignity.”

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said that Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with law.

The expression 'life' cannot seem to connote a mere animal existence, it has a much wider meaning. It takes within its sweep the right to live with dignity, the Court noted.

It added “In crime, once the accused gets acquitted - honourably, discharged by a competent Court of law, or this Court would quash those crimes in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and those orders become final, the shadow of crime, if permitted to continue in place of shadow of dignity, on any citizen, it would be travesty of the concept of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every citizen born in this nation, governed by the Constitution, has a right to live with dignity”

The petitioner was charged under Sections 354A and 354B of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

It was submitted that the police upon investigation discovered that it was a false case registered against the petitioner, leading to his discharge by the High Court, in a criminal revision plea filed by the complainants.

It was argued that the digital records still showed him as an accused. Petitioner stated that on account of his name being displayed on the website of the High Court, he was not getting any job and his brothers also were not getting any jobs since whenever a search was made, it would show that the petitioner was an accused. 

The counsel for the High Court contended that masking of the name is permissible only for the victim and not the accused. It was stated that merely because he was discharged or acquitted would not mean that his name should not be used as an accused. 

The bench noted that the 'B' report, filed by the police was not contested and, therefore, the petitioner was discharged on acceptance of 'B' report resulting in the closure of the case.

In those circumstances, the name of the petitioner being dubbed as an accused even after the aforesaid circumstance undoubtedly leads to grave prejudice to the petitioner., the Court noted, stating that the petitioner was on a higher pedestal than any of the accused who would get acquitted after a full-blown trial.

“Right to oblivion; right to be forgotten are the principles evolved by the democratic nations, as one being a facet of the right to informational privacy. Countries like France and Italy, had by themselves evolved the concept of right to oblivion, which dates back to the 19th century. Europe, in the European Union has, over privacy and personal data, evolved the principle of right to be forgotten, as a right to be a part of one's right to personality, which encompasses dignity, honour and right to a private life. The aforesaid principles evolved from time to time, can be paraphrased into what could become right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” it said.

Referring to the Apex court judgment in the case of KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017),  it observed that the right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and, to be able to control his or her own life would encompass his right to control over its existence on the internet.

The court observed “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 recognizes the right to be forgotten. Likewise, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 also recognizes the right to correction and erasure. The Government of India notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, on 11th August, 2023, to come into force from the date of its publication in the official gazette. The Act also recognizes the right of erasure of personal data.”

Accordingly, it directed the Registrar General to mask the petitioner's name in the digital records and clarified that the mere erasure of the name of the petitioner in the cause title did not mean that he was entitled to seek such erasure from the police records. 

“When identical demands are made by those accused or victims, as case would be accused who come within the circumstances narrated hereinbefore, the Fourth Estate (Media) should also consider masking, delisting and deleting their names from their respective digital records and not drive them to this Court seeking such deletion,” the Court added.

Appearance: Advocate Abhinaya K for Petitioner.

Advocate B.V.Vidyulatha FOR R1.

HCGP Kiran Kumar, FOR R-2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 113

Case Title: XXX AND The Registrar General & Others Case N0: Writ Petition No 25557 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order