Right To Be Forgotten | Man Facing Difficulties In Getting Job Due To An Order By Which He Was Acquitted: Bombay HC Orders Its Removal From Court Website

The Bombay High Court recently ordered the removal of an acquittal order from the Court's website on a plea moved by a person/accused who was facing difficulties in getting job due to the acquittal order passed in his favor.

Essentially, he had moved to the Court arguing that even though the order was one of acquittal, still it was descriptive, and it had the potential to put a bias in the minds of his prospective employers, customers, bankers & investors.

At the outset, the Bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar called it an issue of wide significance in regard to the right to privacy or the right to be forgotten. In this regard, the Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in KS Puttaswamy (Retd) And Anr v Union of India And Ors' (Puttaswamy-II).

It may be noted that the Puttaswamy case recognizes the right to privacy as a component of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the Court did add that no such order in a particular case can ever serve as a precedent for any future order or case.

The case in brief

The Petitioner currently works with a firm in Tokyo, Japan, and he was named as an accused in a 2013 criminal case under Section 66A of the Information And Technology Act before the JMFC Court in Nagpur. The litigation resulted in an acquittal. The resultant order was uploaded to the Court system website.

Now, it was his plea that he was facing difficulties related to employment and was facing issues getting the job, and thus, he moved to the HC with the instant writ plea seeking removal of the acquittal order so that he doesn't have to face its aftereffects in his professional, life.

Court's observations and order

Against this backdrop, having regard to the observations of the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy-ll case, the Court granted the Petitioner an appropriately molded relief as it noted that the petitioner was asserting his right to privacy which connotes a right to be left alone. 

Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the Court directed the Registry to issue the necessary directions to remove the order and judgment from the website and the database accessible from the website of the JMFC and in the NJDG.

The Court also made it clear that the original records of the case will be dealt with in accordance with the Rules regarding the destruction of records in the normal course. Lastly, the Court also directed, by way of abundant caution, that if anyone requests access to those records, that request for access will be addressed following the usual Rules and practices in that regard, including requiring the filing of an Affidavit by the Applicant explaining clearly why such access is required.

With this, the Court parted with the order and ordered that the same be not uploaded on the Court's website. Advocates Rahul Singh and Prashant Mali appeared for the Petitioner. AGP Sukanta Karmakar, AGP appeared for the Respondent-State. Advocate Sanjay Udeshi appeared for Respondent No.3.

Case title - ABC v. UOI and others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 137

Click Here To Read/Download Order