Objectionable: Delhi High Court on legal resource portals changing para numbers of judgments

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday frowned upon the practice of legal resource websites like Manupatra and SCC Online changing paragraphs numbers and other grammatical aspects of court judgments.

A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar said that changes to the original order copy could distort what the Court wants to convey.

“You cannot change the para numbers given by court. Manupatra and SCC Online liberally give their own para numbers. I find it objectionable. Sometimes the way you punctuate or the way you break up a para may convey the impression that the court wants to convey. We find that SCC Online has a different para numbering, Manupatra has a different para numbering, the original para number is completely different," Justice Shankar stated.

The Court made the remarks while hearing the arguments by online legal database Indian Kanoon in its appeal against a May 29 single-judge ruling. The May 29 ruling had laid down guidelines on how personal details may be hidden by online portals in publicly available judgments or orders to protect the privacy and the right to be forgotten of certain litigants.

The judgment was passed on petitions by various individuals who no longer wished to be publicly linked to closed legal proceedings. Indian Kanoon was directed to remove its name-based search functionality with respect to the aggrieved parties before the Court. Any orders or judgments concerning them may remain accessible only by case number, citation, court details and date, the single-judge directed.

In its appeal, Indian Kanoon said that the May 29 ruling unfairly singled it out among multiple legal databases.

On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing Indian Kanoon, submitted that under the garb of "right to be forgotten", its right to upload court judgments was being blocked.

"I have a right to run my business without any hindrance. I have a right to put judgments in public domain. We just give headnote for all the judgments, we may at most give paragraph numbers if not given by court."

He stated that the objective of Indian Kanoon is to provide access to court judgments to everyone free of cost.

"That is the purpose I serve. You are trying to block access to my website and my right to put all the judgment on the internet, under the umbrella of right to be forgotten," he stated.

Datar added that while search results on Google may only display news articles published on a matter, Indian Kanoon shows the complete judgment.

"Google will not give the judgment in detail, Google will only give newspaper reports. By putting me on par with others is impermissible because I am only permitting judicial record and you cannot block access to a judgment at any cost."

A newspaper may be politically titled one way or another while only presents court orders in an accessible format, Datar added.

He also highlighted that directives to de-index or redact details of a judgment already uploaded by a court of law, restricts the people's access to such resources.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing a party who opposed Indian Kanoon's appeals, pointed out that de-indexed court judgments can still be accessed through their case numbers and citations.

The Court, however, noted that if the name-search option is disabled across all such legal databases, if would become very difficult for people, including lawyers, to access judgments.

"Suppose this principle is made applicable across all legal software; your practice will go for a toss. If you are going to say that on Manupatra and SCC Online, you have to search by writ petition number, you will never be able to access any judgment. You cannot say the person who wants to access needs to know the case number. No one knows this," the Court said.

Sibal then sought to distinguish between legal databases on which judgments are freely available (like Indian Kanoon) and legal databases offering services only to its subscribers.

"With the sites that are not behind paywalls, anybody having access can go and that stigma never goes away. I (a litigant named in closed legal proceedings) cannot move on even after ten years. With this kind of accessibility, the idea of de-indexing is to remove that level of accessibility," he explained.

The Court, however, was not persuaded. It said that it was inclined to stay the single-judge's directive against Indian Kanoon.

However, it did not pass any such interim stay order and listed the case for further hearing on October 2.

Advocates Apar Gupta, Naman Kumar and Uzma Sheikh also appeared for Indian Kanoon.

[Read Live Coverage]