Courts Need To Strike Balance Between Individuals' Right To Be Forgotten And Citizens' Right To Know: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that while the courts were expected to possess data, it was the courts discretion to make such data publicly available and such a decision had to be taken consciously and carefully. the bench also observed that the courts could not be compelled to make any information publicly available under the RTI Act.

“Courts cannot be compelled to make available any information in public domain subject to the compulsions imposed by the RTI Act, and, in the interest of public access to justice and courts, such discipline is self-imposed. Courts are expected to perform a fine balancing act between aggregation of data required to perform its functions and protection of personal data so collected,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea by a man challenging a single judge's order rejecting his request to redact his name and other details from a judgment acquitting him in a sexual assault case. The man had submitted that the right to be forgotten and privacy are inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution. He further submitted that uploading judgments containing personal details triggers stereotypical ideas in the minds of readers even after the slur cast in the original judgments are removed by the legal process.

The respondents, on the other hand, emphasized the need for public access to judgments. The registry also challenged the plea on the ground that in the absence of specific rules, a mandamus in nature could not be granted.

The court noted that while rejecting the man's plea, the writ court had noted that there was no legislation in this respect. The bench, however, noted that the decision to redact the name was within the court's discretion and the court must do everything in its power to strive to perfect the system. The bench further observed that the fallibility and vulnerability of the criminal justice system should not stand in the way of the rendition of justice whenever it is called for.

The court added that the open justice system has brought justice and dispensation of justice to the doorstep of citizens. However, the court added that privacy was an inalienable facet of the right to life and dignity, and thus the courts had to strike a balance between the concept of open justice and the privacy of the litigant. The court also noted that institutions committed to serving justice, the courts could not close their eyes to privacy concerns and a litigant's right to leave behind his past.

“Being a service institution committed to serving the cause of justice, the Courts cannot close their eyes to the concerns of privacy and the right that enure in the litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant. This, in our view, would be a proper understanding and reconciliation of the ratio of the judgments in Swapnil Tripathi and K.S.Puttasamy, balancing the concept of open Court/open justice on the one hand and privacy concerns of a citizen, on the other,” the court said.

The court also noted that the sanctity of the original record preserved by the court of record will not be diluted in any way if it is moderated to preserve the privacy of the individuals concerned in the judgment.

In the present case, the court noted that the man's acquittal was full, complete, and unconditional as he had earned his acquittal not on mere benefit of doubt but by disproving the case of the prosecution. The court was thus of the opinion that no public interest in retaining parts of his life as public records which have no relevance now.

The court thus directed Ikanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd to take down the copy of the judgment that was available in their website and further directed the Madras High Court registry to redact his name and other details relating to his identity from the judgment and ensure that only the redacted judgment was available for publication and uploading.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.S.Jayavel

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Samidurai

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

Click here to read/download the judgment