The Kerala High Court on Monday sought the response of the High Court administration, Google, and Indian Kanoon in a plea seeking to mask or remove the personal details of two persons from a judgment uploaded online in a criminal case..Justice Devan Ramachandran issued notice to the High Court Registrar, Google, and Indian Kanoon while considering a plea filed by two persons who were earlier arrayed as the accused in a criminal case that was ultimately quashed after an out-of-court settlement..The lead petitioner submitted that he is an academic who was actively pursuing a doctoral degree in social work while also serving as a mindfulness practitioner, holding the position of co-founder within a distinguished organization..He highlighted that a High Court judgment quashing a first information report (FIR) against him and a co-accused after it was settled amicably was still available on the official website of the High Court of Kerala and online platforms like Indian Kanoon.He raised concern that the judgment being available online (which also refers to the petitioners as the accused) is accessible by everyone and prejudicially affects their everyday life..“The publication of the judgment online and allowing the same to remain online for eternity infringes upon the right to be forgotten which is a facet of the right to privacy,” said the plea..The plea further said that requests were earlier made to remove or mask the petitioners' names from the record on Indian Kanoon. A representation was also made to the High Court of Kerala's Grievance Redressal Officer on this issue. However, these requests were rejected without valid grounds, the petitioners said.Therefore, the petitioners approached the High Court to mask or remove their names in the judgment published on the High Court website and also on websites like Indian Kanoon..The petitioners were represented by advocates Raghul Sudheesh, J Lakshmi, Elizabeth Mathew, Bini Das, Dharsana A, and Aravind Sankar M..The issue of whether online records of persons who were accused in criminal cases should be erased from the public domain once the case is quashed or closed has risen before as well. Earlier this year, the Gujarat High Court opined that the media should delete news articles reporting on the lodging of an FIR once such a case is quashed. If not, they could harm the reputation and goodwill of the person against whom the case was lodged, the Court had orally observed.In July this year, a person acquitted in a cheating case moved the Kerala High Court to remove references to his name as an 'accused' on internet platforms.The Kerala High Court was also called to decide on similar pleas earlier as well, where the "right to be forgotten" was cited by a rape accused in one case, and by a rape survivor in another case. While responding to yet another such case before the Kerala High Court, Indian Kanoon had earlier asserted that the right to privacy cannot be extended to protect an individual from publications based on public records, including court orders..Right to be forgotten: Kerala High Court refuses to expunge suggestion to Google to use AI tools to identify, remove private data.In 2021, a single judge of the Madras High Court deviated from his earlier prima facie view that an accused has a right to have his name redacted from court orders and judgments upon his acquittal and ultimately concluded that the right to be forgotten cannot exist when it comes to judgments of the Court.The Orissa High Court has also lamented the lack of a mechanism to permanently delete information from the internet in order to safeguard the right to be forgotten. This observation was made while considering a bail application moved by a person who took videos and intimate photographs of his sexual assault on a woman and uploaded them on Facebook.