Facts –
This case is filed by Jorawer Singh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), an American Citizen of Indian Origin. In 2009, when the petitioner visited India, he was charged under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985. Though later he was acquitted of all the charges by the trial court. In the appeal as well that was filed against the order of the trial court, the petitioner was set free by the Delhi High Court. (Custom v. Jorawar Singh Mundy Crl.A. No. 14/2013).
The petitioner was given a clean chit of all the allegations from Indian courts. After this, he moved back to the US and pursued his professional career in law, and applied for various job positions. But in the employment process, he faced a lot of criticism and negative feedback from the employers at the time of conducting his background verification due to the fact that the judgments regarding his involvement in the drug case were available all over the internet, specifically the internet platform, namely, Google (Respondent 2), Google LLC (Respondent 3), Indian Kanoon (Respondent 4) and vLex, in (Respondent 5).
Hence, the present writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi asking for direction to be issued to the Respondents to take down the reported judgment by the Delhi High Court in Custom vs. Jorawar Singh Munday from their platforms as a right to privacy which is enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Issue –
Judgment –
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court started by stating that they have to examine the issue in the present case question which requires a balancing of the ‘right to privacy’ against the ‘right to information’ available to the general public, as well as ‘maintenance of transparency’ in the judicial records. In the landmark judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of Indian [(2017) 10 SCC 1] it recognized that the right to privacy is a fundamental right covered under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution but it didn’t talk about the right to be forgotten. Though It stated that “the right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and to be able to control his/her own life would encompass his right to control his/her own life and his/ her existence on the internet.” The literal interpretation of this stance implicatesmplicate that the right to control personal data also means the right to control the sharing of personal information on the online platform and also erase and cease the sharing of such information.
In Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Businessman Media Pvt. Ltd & Ors. [2019 (175) DRJ 600 it was observed that the Right to privacy includes the ‘Right to be forgotten’ and the ‘Right to be left alone’ and ordered the removal of certain posts on The Quint related to the allegations of sexual harassment against the plaintiff until the case is finally disposed of. The Court recognized the Right to be forgotten as one of the core right under the Right to privacy.
In Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha [BLAPL No. 4592/2020] case, the Orissa High Court rejected the bail application of an accused who was alleged to have uploaded the victim’s sexual assault personal data on social media platforms. The court said that there is no legal standing on the right to be forgotten in the Indian Laws. The Hon’ble court directed the victim to seek relief from the appropriate authorities as this case didn’t fall under the writ jurisdiction.
In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1995 AIR 264] The Supreme Court observed that the right to privacy implies the right to be left alone. Every individual has a right to protect his privacy and has a choice not to share his personal information regarding everything and anything. It is always important to strike a balance between the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
The judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Vasunathan vs. the Registrar General, [WP No. 62038 of 2016] where a father (petitioner) filed a writ petition asking for directions for removal of her daughter’s name from an order passed by this court as it has negative consequences on her daughter’s repute and relationship with her husband. These orders are easily available on online platforms and just by typing her daughter’s name, the order reflects in the search results. The court observed that “This would be in line with the trend in western countries of the ‘right to be forgotten’ in sensitive cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the modesty and reputation of that person concerned.” It held in favor of the petitioner and directed its registry to make sure that the name of the petitioner’s daughter doesn’t appear in the order anywhere wherever such an order is available on the internet platforms.
Based upon the precedents discussed above, in the present case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi decided in the favour of the petitioner and held that as the social and professional life of the petitioner is hampered and his reputation is getting affected despite the fact that he was acquitted from all the criminal charges, he is entitled to relief and directed the Respondents Google and Google LLC to block the access to the judgment using their search engine.
Conclusion
The Right to be forgotten is the right to have someone’s personal information removed from the internet space as a matter of privacy to protect his personal data not being shared with the general public. It has its origin from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), European Union, and laid down under Article 17(2), GDPR. Though, it is a new concept in India that is yet unexplored and not legally recognized by Indian law. Where on one hand many courts have recognized the right to be forgotten as an integral part of the Right to privacy and on other hand, various courts have rejected the pleas of removal of personal information from the online platforms on the ground that there is no provision in any Indian law mentioning the right to be forgotten, hence people are left with no relief and suffered from harmful aftereffects. This contradiction occurs because of no legislative sanction attached to this right. The Information Technology Act, 2000, the statute regulating the cyber world in India does not mention about right to be forgotten. Whereas the Indian Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 does talk about the right to erasure or the right to be forgotten but we have to wait for the act to get enforced. Hence, the right to be forgotten is still evolving and struggling to be considered as a fundamental right in India. With the advent of technology, the concern of data privacy and data exploitation is bound to occur, and the right to be forgotten is one of the reliefs that can be claimed against any illegal or unwanted sharing of the personal information of anyone who is facing ill effects because of the availability of such content online. Its high time to legally recognize right to be forgotten as a core ingredient of right to privacy and hence, a fundamental right.
Judgment Link – [https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/16186364774292021-393948.pdf]