[BREAKING] Accused entitled to have his name redacted from court orders once acquitted: Madras High Court on Right to be Forgotten

An accused person who is eventually acquitted of all charges would be entitled to have his name redacted from court orders (pertaining to the crime he was earlier accused of) in order to protect his right to privacy, the Madras High Court observed on Friday..Justice N Anand Venkatesh made the observation after a man earlier accused of offenses under Sections 417 (cheating) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and who was subsequently acquitted of all charges by the High Court moved a plea to redact his name from the Court's judgment. .After the acquittal, it was argued that the petitioner can no longer be identified as an accused in the eye of law. On Friday, the Court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's case and that he is entitled to get his name redacted from the High Court's judgment..However, the Court went one step further and decided to write a detailed judgment on the issue. For this purpose, it has invited the response of the concerned authorities as well as members of the Bar. ."This Court wants to hear the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and also the Members of the Bar and understand the various ramifications before writing a detailed Judgment on this issue", the Court said. .Acquitted person entitled to get his name redacted from judgment to protect right to privacy.The Court observed that following the Supreme Court's historic judgment in Puttasamy v. Union of India, whereby the right to privacy is now recognized as a fundamental right, an acquitted person would be entitled to have his name redacted from judgments referring to him as an accused, the Court noted.."If the essence of this Judgment is applied to the case on hand, obviously even a person, who was accused of committing an offence and who has been subsequently acquitted from all charges will be entitled for redacting his name from the order passed by the Court in order to protect his Right of Privacy", the order stated..First impressions created through Google searches in today's world.Justice Venkatesh also observed that in today's world, first impressions are often created based on the information obtained through quick google searches, even if such information is not authentic. .The world is literally under the grips of social media, the Court remarked. Depending on the data provided online, a person's character can be marred, the Court observed further. .While so, the judge took note of the petitioner's grievance that his name is being associated with the criminal accusation earlier levelled against him in the Court's judgment, even though he has been acquitted from all charges. ."Unfortunately, whoever types the name of the petitioner in Google search is able to access the Judgment of this Court. In the entire Judgment, the petitioner is identified as an accused even though he has been ultimately acquitted from all charges. According to the petitioner, this causes a serious impact on the reputation of the petitioner in the eyes of the Society and therefore, the petitioner wants his name to be redacted from the Judgment of this Court", the Court recorded..Data Protection Bill, 2019 being finalised.The Court went on to observe that the Central Government is in the process of finalizing the Data Protection Bill, 2019 which is aimed to effectively protect the data and privacy of persons. .Under prevailing laws, only the identities of victims who are women and children have to be kept confidential when writing judgments and as a result their names do not get reflected in court orders and judgments, Justice Venkatesh further observed. However, such protection is presently not available to accused persons who are later acquitted, the Court noted. ."This sufficiently protects the person and privacy of the (woman/ child). This right has not been extended to an accused person, who ultimately is acquitted from all charges. In spite of an order of acquittal, the name of the accused person gets reflected in the order. Therefore, for the first time, a person, who was acquitted of all charges has approached this Court and sought for redacting his name from the Judgment passed by this Court", Justice Venkatesh said. .For the present, however, the Court said that it could still act on the request made by the petitioner to redact his name in the Court's judgment by placing reliance on Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty which has been interpreted to include the right to privacy) of the Constitution of India. .In the order, the judge also noted that the Delhi High Court had recently directed websites to redact the name of a petitioner in similar circumstances. "It is also informed to this Court that a new Right called as Right to be Forgotten is sought to be included in the list of Rights that are already available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India", the Court noted. .Delhi High Court upholds Right to be Forgotten of American citizen; directs Google, Indian Kanoon to block an acquittal judgment.The matter will be heard next on July 28 and 2.15 pm. The Registry has been asked to publish the order in the Advocate Associations and Bar Associations both in the Principal Bench and the Madurai Bench of the High Court. ."The members of the Bar are requested to assist this Court in this issue", the Court appealed. .The right to be forgotten refers to the right to have one's personal details removed from the public domain, including the internet, once such information is no longer relevant or required to be publicly available..Last year, the Kerala High Court had admitted a plea seeking erasure of the petitioner’s personal details from a Google search result..Right to be forgotten: Kerala High Court admits petition for removal of personal information from court order available on Google.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. The same was observed in a bail application moved by a person who videographed intimate photographs of his sexual assault on a woman and uploaded them on Facebook..Information in public domain is like toothpaste, can’t get it back once it is out of the tube: Orissa High Court calls for right to be forgotten