Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed an application moved by M/s R.S.S. Estate LLP and others seeking anonymisation of their names and personal identifiers from the publicly accessible records of proceedings in which an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC had been quashed earlier this year.

The petitioners had sought directions to the Registry to mask their names from the cause title, pleadings, applications and the judgment, besides seeking restrictions on the searchability of the records on internet search engines, legal databases and digital platforms.

It was contended that the criminal proceedings had been amicably settled and the FIR quashed. However, despite the settlement, their names continued to be associated with the proceedings in the digital domain, adversely affecting their professional standing in the real estate business.

Relying on the Delhi High Court's right to be forgotten decision in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India, the petitioners argued that they were entitled to have their names and personal identifiers masked from publicly accessible judicial records.

The Court noted that in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav, it had been held that the right to seek masking flows from the constitutional right to informational privacy under Article 21 and is governed by the principle of proportionality.

The judgment had recognised that, in cases involving acquittal, discharge or quashing of criminal proceedings, the continued association of an individual's name with judicial records may, in certain circumstances, disproportionately affect privacy and reputation.

However, Justice Kaurav held that the present case arose out of a commercial transaction concerning immovable property and involved persons engaged in real estate development and allied business activities.

The Court observed that the petitioners themselves had asserted that their credibility and reputation among clients, investors, financial institutions and business associates were integral to their commercial activities. Since the dispute arose from the same field in which the petitioners continue to conduct business, the information sought to be masked remained relevant to those considering entering into commercial dealings with them.

“It is, therefore, the case that the continued accessibility of the information sought to be masked is relevant and material to, inter alia, a proposed investor wanting to engage with the petitioner-company and its promoters. Indeed, the proposed investors/stake-holders have a right to be informed of the persons they are dealing with,” the Court observed.

The bench further held that courts should be “slow in erasing from the memory of people events that have a bearing on the future”, particularly in cases that do not involve issues of personal liberty.

Distinguishing commercial disputes from matters involving intimate personal relationships, the Court held that information concerning business transactions cannot be treated on the same footing as information relating to family life, marriage or personal relationships, which lie at the core of the right to privacy.

The Court also found that the petitioners had merely made general assertions regarding prejudice to their reputation and had failed to place any material on record to establish that the continued availability of the judicial record had caused disproportionate harm warranting the relief sought. It added that, “in larger public interest”, the general public ought to be aware of the antecedents of the petitioners.

Further, the Court noted that the order quashing the FIR itself recorded the settlement between the parties and the ultimate outcome of the proceedings, and therefore did not present an incomplete or misleading picture.

As such, the Court dismissed their application.

Appearance: Mr. Naman Verma, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mrs. Chavi Lazarus, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advocates for Respondents

Case Title: M/s R.S.S. Estate LLP & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 3708/2024

Click here to read order