CASE TITLE:
Virgina Shylum Vs. Union of India
DATE OF ORDER:
22 December 2022
JUDGE(S):
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen
Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque
SUBJECT
The Division Bench of Kerala High Court comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapenheld that a claim for protection of personal information based on the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten can not co-exist with an Open Court Justice System in a democracy. The learned Court made the following observations while hearing a batch of pleas that sought erasure of personal details of the litigants as were displayed on Google search and on legal resource website Indian Kanoon irrespective of the fact that such persons were acquitted by the Courts hearing those cases. The Bench observed- ‘The Courtroom is open to all. The Court cannot gloss over the protection available to publishers of judgments under Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. Reporting and publishing judgments are part of freedom of speech and expression and that cannot be taken away lightly without the aid of law.’
BRIEF FACTS OFTHE CASE
- Several writ petitions were filed before the Court presenting a question of seminal importance in judicial information policy followed by the Courts in India. Some of the litigants in these cases were involved in custody and matrimonial disputes, some were involved in criminal matters.
- The petitioners in all the cases sought to challenge the display of their personal information on Google search and other legal research websites like Indian Kanoon.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS
- The petitioners challenged the said display of their personal information on the ground that it infringes upon their right to privacy.
- The plea to recognize one’s right to be forgotten was also raised.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent(s) contended that the scope of right to privacy can not be widened enough to include protection of an individual from publications based on public records, including court orders.
- It was also submitted that the legislature is already considering to recognize the right to be forgotten and as such the current plea is immature.
- It was further contended that right to be forgotten is not an absolute right. A balance must be struck between the right to be forgotten and the right to know.
- It was also submitted that in today’s world of advanced technology like Artificial Intelligence etc, the search engines operate from a single platform and as such sorting out data in a way to suit every nation’s legal needs is close to impossible.
LEGAL ISSUE
- Whether the publication of court judgements online in criminal matters is violative of the right to be forgotten?
- Whether publication of judgements arising out of matrimonial and family disputes, beings private in nature, is violative of right to privacy?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court while adjudicating upon the matters in great length, discussed extensively various facets of the Right to be Forgotten. It observed that the right to be forgotten is a specie of the right to privacy. It can be defined as ‘the right for natural persons to have informations about them deleted after a period of time.’
- The Court further observed that the right to be forgotten is not an absolute right and is made subject to freedom of speech and expression, public interest etc.
- The Court further went on to draw a distinction between ‘right to be forgotten’ and ‘right to erasure’. The court observed- ‘The right to be forgotten can be claimed to erase memory to move forward in life with dignity. Whereas, when the information is incorrect or irrelevant the right to erasure can be claimed.’
- The Court observed that one of the fundamental aspects of a democracy is the Open Court Justice System. The Court noted that mere extension of an Open Court Justice System into the digital space can not be rendered as being violative of right to privacy, more so when there is an absence of any law to the same effect laid down by the legislature.
- On the plea raised by some of the litigants to invoke their right to be forgotten in criminal matters, the Court remarked- ‘The public records relating to the petitioners who were either accused or parties to the criminal proceedings cannot be erased forever.’
- On the plea raised by some of the litigants to invoke their right to be forgotten in matrimonial and family disputes, the Court observed that in the cases of the type i.e matrimonial , family disputes and the likes, where law does not recognize the open court system the Registry of the Court shall refrain from publishing or allowing to be published the personal informations of the litigants provided the parties to the litigation insist upon the same.
- Apart from that, the Court also held that owing to the circumstances and facts of each case, including the duration involved therein, the Court may allow a party to invoke its right to be forgotten.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above observations, the Court accordingly disposed off the petitions filed before it. It can thus be concluded that right to privacy, though an essential right can not be said to an absolute right and the same is to exercised subject to various considerations like freedom of speech and expression, public interest etc.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
