Case Law Details
P. Nithish Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an engineering graduate from Sivakasi who sought removal of records relating to a criminal case from the public domain after the prosecution against him had been quashed. The petitioner had been implicated in Crime No. 2 of 2020 registered by the All Women Police Station, Sivakasi, for offences under Sections 13, 14(1), 16 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 67(b) of the Information Technology Act, based on allegations that he had shared pornographic pictures of children through his Instagram account on 05.05.2019. He was arrested on 15.02.2020, released on bail on 03.03.2020, and subsequently obtained quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the Court found no trace in his mobile phone showing that such pictures had been uploaded or deleted.
The petitioner contended that continued availability of records relating to the case in the public domain would adversely affect his future career prospects. The Court declined to examine the larger question of the right to be forgotten, noting that an earlier decision had held that the doctrine could not be invoked in relation to judicial records, though relief could be granted on a case-by-case basis. The Court also noted the Union of India’s stand that the right to privacy is a fundamental right recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and referred to decisions where courts had accepted the doctrine of the right to be forgotten on a case-specific basis.
Observing that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and fully vindicated after the criminal proceedings were quashed, the Court held that internet searches of his name could injure his reputation and affect future employment prospects. Considering the special facts and circumstances, the Court directed that the petitioner’s details be blocked from the public domain, directed the fifth respondent to block the petitioner’s details in its records, permitted the petitioner to approach Indian Kanoon for blocking access to the earlier quashing judgment through search engines, directed that details of the criminal case and judgment should not be furnished to third parties, directed the State authorities to ensure that the case details were not available in CCTNS, and granted liberty to the petitioner to seek enforcement of the directions from the concerned authorities. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents 1, 2 and 5 and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 3, 4 and 6 to 8.
2. The writ petitioner hails from Sivakasi. He is an engineering graduate. He came to be implicated in Crime No.2 of 2020 registered on the file of All Women Police Station, Sivakasi, for the offences under Sections 13, 14(1), 16, 17 of Prohibition of Child from Sexual Offences Act and Section 67(b),(b) of Information Technology Act. The case was registered based on the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District. It was alleged that the petitioner had shared pornographic pictures of children though his Instragram account on 05.05.2019. The petitioner was arrested on 15.02.2020 and released on bail only on 03.03.2020. The petitioner subsequently filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12441 of 2020 for quashing the said criminal case. After elaborately hearing both sides, the prosecution initiated against the writ petitioner was quashed on the ground that there was no trace in the petitioner’s mobile phone that such pictures ever were uploaded or even deleted.
3. The petitioner however insists that records relating to his case should not be available in the public domain. This is because that would adversely affect his future career prospects. Through the learned senior counsel strongly contended that every individual has the right to be forgotten, I consciously refrain from venturing into consideration of the larger issue. This is because a learned Judge of this Court had already taken a view that the right to be forgotten cannot be invoked in matters relating to judicial records. However, on a case to case basis, relief can certainly be granted. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the following averments are found:-
“7.It is humbly submitted that, the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. The international legal concept of “right to be forgotten” is evolving in India. The Indian courts also have accepted the doctrine of “right to be forgotten” on a case to case basis in the following cases:
a. Orissa High Court in Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha (BLAPL No.4592/2020, decided on 23rd November, 2020).
b. Karnataka High Court in Vasunathan v. Register General 2017 SCC Online Kar 424.
c. Jorawer Singh Mundy v Union of India 2021 SCC Online Del 2306 (Case is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi).
Recently on 18.07.2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.875/2022 in SLP (Crl) No.3211/2022 – XXXX Vs. Kacherla Durga Prasad & Ors has passed in interim direction to the Court registry directing “to examine the issue and to work out how the name of both the petitioner and respondent No.1 along with address details can be masked so that they do not appear visible for any search engine” and had adjourned the case to three weeks.
4. Here is a case where the petitioner has been falsely and without any justification implicated. That is why, this Court came to his rescue by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to secure the ends of justice. Due to advent of internet technology, a mere click of the writ petitioner’s name would throw up past records and that would definitely injure his reputation. In these days, any prospective employer does conduct a due diligence search about a prospective employee’s past. The employer may come to adverse conclusions regarding the petitioner even though he has been fully vindicated before this Court. Considering the special facts and circumstances of this case, I deem fit and appropriate to issue the following directions:-
“(1) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State Government categorically states before this Court that by order passed by the competent authority, the details pertaining to the writ petitioner have been totally blocked and that the petitioner’s name will not even be seen in the public domain.
2. The fifth respondent is directed to block the details regarding the petitioner in their records so that it is not seen in the public domain.
3. The petitioner is permitted to send a representation to the Indian Kanoon along with a copy of this order and Indian Kanoon is directed to block the judgment dated 12.01.2022 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12441 of 2020 from being accessed by using search engine such as Google, Yahoo etc.
4. The impleaded respondents shall not furnish the details regarding the petition mentioned criminal case or the judgment arising out of the same to any third party.
5. The State Government authorities are directed to ensure that the details regarding the petition mentioned case are not available in CCTNS.
6. The petitioner is also given further liberty to petition or move any authority concerned for enforcement of order passed by this Court and the said authority is obliged to comply with the same.
5. The writ petition is disposed of on these terms. No costs.
Author Bio
