Karnataka High Court Permits Masking Of Acquitted Woman's Name From Court Records, Search Results On Google & Indian Kanoon

The Karnataka High Court has directed Google, Indian Kanoon, and others maintaining judicial records to mask the name of a woman who was acquitted in a criminal case in 2019, observing that a final acquittal must be recognised not just in courtrooms but also in the digital world. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 279]The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over a single bench, held that the continued presence of the petitioner's name in online records, despite her acquittal, violated her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also dismissed the apprehension expressed by the High Court's registry and City Civil Court Registrar that granting the relief would 'open floodgates' for similar claims. “…Courts do not adjudicate rights by counting the number of those who may seek justice in the future. They adjudicate them by testing the legitimacy of the claim against the touchstone of the Constitution. If, indeed, the recognition of such a right were to result in many more similarly placed citizens approaching constitutional Courts seeking identical relief, so be it..”, the court firmly said.The court also said that if allowing the plea for masking an acquitted person's identity would cause other similarly placed persons to approach the court, it wouldn't be reason enough to decline such a relief. Such an argument or reasoning would be one 'in terrorem', i.e., 'one founded upon the fear of consequences rather than the command of constitutional values', the court added.The fear of litigants approaching the court in large numbers cannot extinguish or eclipse a 'legitimate plea for protection of dignity', the court underscored.“…If the so-called Pandora's box is opened by the enforcement of a fundamental right, so be it. The spectre of multiplicity of litigation can never be employed as a constitutional alibi to deny relief to one who demonstrably establishes an invasion of her fundamental rights. Constitutional guarantees are not to be rationed for fear that others may invoke them….”, the court said further. Noting the above, the court has issued a writ of mandamus to the High Court registry, the city civil court registry, the state police, Google India, and Indian Kanoon to 'forthwith mask the name of the petitioner' from digital records pertaining to the case.“…To permit obsolete digital records to perpetually resurrect allegations that have long been buried by a judgment of acquittal would amount to allowing technology to defeat justice and memory to triumph over judicial truth…A Court of law may pronounce innocence in its judgment, but if the virtual world continues to portray the individual as an accused, the acquittal risks becoming a paper declaration, bereft of any meaningful consequence in the lived realities of the individual…”, the court noted in its order.The petitioner was Accused no.3 in a case from 2014 involving offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and sections of the IPC pertaining to trafficking and obscenity. A charge sheet was filed and the matter was tried as a Sessions Case.The trial court acquitted the petitioner and the other accused, finding that the prosecution couldn't prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the said acquittal had attained finality.According to the plea, the petitioner approached the United Nations wherein was granted refugee status and permanent residence in Sweden.The plea arose from a browsing session of the petitioner wherein she discovered that her name continued to surface in online records in Google and Indian Kanoon, indicating that she was an accused in a pending criminal case.Prospective employers, if they were to do a background check, would come across the pending criminal prosecution against the petitioner, it was argued before the High Court. “…The dignity that had lain eclipsed under the long and oppressive shadow of criminal prosecution stands restored to its rightful pedestal, and the insignia of innocence, momentarily obscured by the pendency of proceedings, once again adorns the individual in full measure…”, the court opined after hearing the parties.Reliance was also placed on the apex court judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The High Court quoted the Supreme Court's observation that while humans forget, 'the internet does not forget and does not let humans forget'.“…The Constitution does not merely guarantee life—it guarantees a life worthy of living, a life free from unwarranted stigma, perpetual suspicion and needless humiliation. Once a competent Court has restored the petitioner's innocence by a judgment of acquittal that has attained finality, every repository of judicial information is under a corresponding obligation to ensure that such judicial vindication is not rendered illusory by the relentless memory of...

Karnataka High Court Permits Masking Of Acquitted Woman's Name From Court Records, Search Results On Google & Indian Kanoon

Sebin James

Can't fear enforcement of fundamental rights merely because it will open floodgates to litigation, Court said.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

Karnataka High Court Permits Masking Of Acquitted Woman's Name From Court Records, Search Results On Google & Indian Kanoon

Sebin James

Can't fear enforcement of fundamental rights merely because it will open floodgates to litigation, Court said.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers