Virginia Shylu v Union of India

  
According to the Kerala High Court, an open court justice system and a claim for the protection of personal information based on the right to privacy cannot coexist.

In the lack of a statute established in this respect by the Parliament, the court ruled that the Open Court justice system is an essential component of a democratic ecology such as India and that its extension into the digital space cannot be considered a violation of private rights.

Complaints were brought before the court 
Several complaints were brought before the court against the publication of judgments and decrees in specific cases by Indian Kanoon and other legal publications, which exposed the petitioners' and respondents' private information to the public and made it accessible via Google.

The petitioners claimed that keeping judgments in the digital realm for all time violates the fundamental right to be forgotten, even though doing so caused them significant discrimination, mental suffering, and agony.
The bench was primarily to decide whether a party might request an order to have his or her name and address hidden in the case title and the judgment's body to protect his or her right to privacy in writ petitions involving family affairs.

Right to be forgotten 

The right to be forgotten can only be asserted to apply retroactively, to information that has already been disclosed, according to the split bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen.

The court decided that "the right to be forgotten cannot be used in present proceedings or processes of recent origin, and that it is the responsibility of the Legislature to create reasons for such an invocation."

Emphasis on the need for the modern government 

It emphasized the need for the modern government to find solutions to several problems relating to the legal ecosystem and the assimilation of data with various stakeholders with an emphasis on governance, welfare, and the general welfare of the people.

The bench stressed, however, that depending on the specifics of the case, including the length of time involved, the court may grant a party's request to de-index and erase personal data from internet search engines to exercise their right to be forgotten.

It further stated that the court is permitted to use the principles of the right to erasure in suitable circumstances to grant a party the right to remove and erase personal data that is publicly accessible online.

Registry of the court 

In addition, the bench ruled and held that the Registry of the Court shall not publish or permit to be published the personal information of the parties on the website or on any other information system maintained by the Court if the parties to such litigation so insist. This rule applies to family and matrimonial cases as well as other cases where the law does not recognize the Open Court system.

The division bench made the following comment while deciding the matter that had been submitted to it by a single-judge bench

"The Court cannot claim a monopoly on the data available to the judiciary in a liberal and democratic society," the court stated. "With the advancement of technology, the individual's identity in virtual public space has become digitally immortal."

The bench further stated that there is no open data policy in place at the courts and that sharing data with the general public, stakeholders, researchers, the government, etc. is in the public interest.

Article 19(1)(a) 

The bench explained that publishing decisions and orders are an aspect of freedom of speech and expression. "All are welcome in the courtroom. The protection provided to publishers of judgments under our Constitution's Article 19(1)(a) cannot be glossed over by the Court. Reporting and publicizing decisions are part of exercising one's right to free speech, which cannot be curtailed without the support of the law "declared the bench.

However, the panel has ordered the High Court Registrar to post the privacy notices in both English and Malayalam on the websites of the High Court and the District Judiciary within two months.