Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a foreign national who was arraigned as accused No. 3 in a criminal case for offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Foreigners Act, 1946, Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Registrar General of the High Court, the Registrar of the City Civil Court, the State of Karnataka, Google Inc., and the Indian Kanoon to delete or mask her name from digital records of the case. She had been acquitted by the trial court on 28-03-2019 in S.C. No. 547/2015, and the acquittal had become final. After being granted refugee status and permanent residence in Sweden, she found that despite the acquittal, her name continued to appear on Google and Indian Kanoon as an accused in the criminal case, causing severe prejudice to her employment prospects and dignity. She contended that the digital footprint of the extinguished prosecution subjected her to continuing stigma and violated her right to live with dignity. The respondents opposed the prayer, arguing that granting such relief would open floodgates and burden the system. The High Court, after considering the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution and the principles of informational privacy laid down in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, held that a final acquittal carries the imprimatur of innocence and must be respected in the digital realm. The Court observed that the right to be forgotten is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty, and that an acquitted person cannot be forced to carry the stigma of a criminal accusation throughout her life when the court has conclusively declared her innocence. The Court directed the respondents to mask the petitioner's name from digital records and searchable platforms, noting that to do otherwise would allow technology to defeat justice and memory to triumph over judicial truth.
Headnote
A) Constitution of India - Right to Privacy - Right to be Forgotten - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The right to be forgotten, as an element of informational privacy, requires that a person who has been finally acquitted of criminal charges not be perpetually stigmatized by digital records that continue to portray her as an accused; such continuing digital association violates the right to live with dignity and impedes professional and personal life; Held, respondents must take measures to mask the name from searchable digital records (Paras 14-16). B) Criminal Procedure - Effect of Acquittal - Final Acquittal as Judicial Declaration of Innocence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 235(1) - A judgment of acquittal that has attained finality is a solemn judicial declaration that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt and thus reaffirms the presumption of innocence; the law cannot countenance a situation where the virtual world continues to portray the individual as an accused, making the acquittal a mere paper declaration; Held, the acquittal must receive equal recognition in the digital sphere as in the courtroom (Paras 13-14). C) Criminal Procedure - Digital Records - Duty to Mask Identity After Acquittal - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Where a person has been acquitted and the acquittal is final, it becomes constitutionally imperative for authorities maintaining digital case records and legal databases to mask her name so that her identity is not linked to the extinguished prosecution; the right to oblivion protects the acquitted from continuing civil disability and loss of employment opportunities; Held, the persistent digital resurrection of dead allegations defeats justice and must be remedied (Paras 15-16). D) Constitutional Law - Informational Privacy - European Concepts of Right to Oblivion - Constitution of India, Article 21 - The right to oblivion and the right to be forgotten, as evolved in European jurisdictions, form part of the right to personality and dignity under Article 21; the Supreme Court's decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 recognizes that an individual has a right to control his existence on the internet, though not absolute; Held, the said principles apply to prevent profiling of acquitted persons based on past accusations (Paras 12, 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who has been honourably acquitted of criminal charges by a court of law, and whose acquittal has attained finality, is entitled to have her name masked or deleted from digital records and searchable platforms maintained by state authorities and private entities, so as to protect her right to privacy, dignity, and reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The Court held that the respondents are constitutionally obligated to mask the petitioner's name from digital records and searchable platforms, ensuring that the final acquittal is reflected in the digital sphere. The Court observed that the right to be forgotten is a facet of Article 21 and that an acquitted person cannot be perpetually stigmatized by obsolete digital records. Specific directions to mask the name from the records maintained by respondents were implied.
Law Points
- right to be forgotten
- right to informational privacy
- effect of final acquittal
- digital stigma
- Article 21 of Constitution of India
- right to life and personal liberty
- right to oblivion
- masking of name in digital records
- acquittal restores presumption of innocence
