In a significant affirmation of the Right to Be Forgotten, the Karnataka High Court has directed the redaction of the names of acquitted petitioners from judicial records and websites. The judgment underscores that the Right to Erasure, a facet of the right to privacy, extends to individuals honorably acquitted, ensuring their digital footprint does not perpetuate stigma.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sri Balamurali @ Sanjay and Smt. Bharathi, were accused in C.C. No. 11065/2015 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (ITP Act), Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They were acquitted by a judgment dated 10.02.2020. Despite their acquittal, the judgments and orders in their case remained publicly accessible on the websites of the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka (Respondent No. 1), the National Informatics Centre (Respondent No. 2), and IndianKanoon (Respondent No. 3).
Key Facts
- The petitioners were acquitted in C.C. No. 11065/2015 on 10.02.2020
- The judgments and orders in C.C. No. 11065/2015, Criminal Petition No. 3149/2014, and Criminal Petition No. 5391/2015 continued to display their names on public platforms
- The petitioners sought redaction of their names from these records to prevent reputational harm
Procedural History
- 10.02.2020: Acquittal in C.C. No. 11065/2015
- 2022: Writ Petition No. 1491 of 2022 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking redaction of names from judicial records and websites
- 03.06.2026: Present judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought the following reliefs:
- A writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to delete or redact their names from the judgments and orders in C.C. No. 11065/2015, Criminal Petition No. 3149/2014, and Criminal Petition No. 5391/2015
- An alternative direction to redact their names from the aforementioned records
- A direction to Respondent No. 3 (IndianKanoon) to delete or redact their names from its website
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether individuals acquitted of criminal charges are entitled to the Right to Be Forgotten, specifically the redaction of their names from publicly accessible judicial records and websites, as a facet of their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on two key judgments:
- SJ v. Union of India and Others ((2023) 2 High Court Cases (Del) 520), where the Delhi High Court recognized the Right to Be Forgotten for acquitted individuals
- XXX v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2024 SCC OnLine Karnataka 18), where a coordinate bench of the Karnataka High Court extended similar relief
The petitioners argued that the facts and circumstances of their case were identical to those in the cited judgments and that they were entitled to the same relief.
For the Respondents
- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Registrar General and National Informatics Centre) submitted that they had no objections and would comply with any directions issued by the Court
- Respondent No. 3 (IndianKanoon) was served with notice but remained unrepresented
The Court's Analysis
The Court framed the Right to Be Forgotten as a species of the right to privacy, which has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (AIR 2017 SC 4161). The Court observed that the issue was no longer res integra (a settled matter) in light of the precedents cited by the petitioners.
The Court held:
"The Right to Be Forgotten, also known as the Right to Erasure, being a species of the right to privacy, has been given effect to by a series of judicial precedents, particularly in cases of honorable acquittal."
The Court emphasized that the continued public availability of the petitioners' names in the judgments, despite their acquittal, could perpetuate reputational harm and social stigma. This, the Court reasoned, violated their right to privacy under Article 21, which includes the right to live with dignity.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the following:
- Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 must redact the petitioners' names from the judgments and orders in C.C. No. 11065/2015, Criminal Petition No. 3149/2014, and Criminal Petition No. 5391/2015
- Respondent No. 3 (IndianKanoon) must delete the petitioners' names from its website
- The redaction and deletion must be completed within ten days of receiving a certified copy of the order
What This Means For Similar Cases
The Right to Be Forgotten Extends to Acquitted Individuals
- Courts are increasingly recognizing that acquittal alone does not erase the stigma of criminal proceedings. The Right to Be Forgotten ensures that individuals are not perpetually haunted by their past association with criminal cases
- Practitioners representing acquitted clients should consider filing writ petitions under Article 226 for redaction of names from judicial records and websites
Compliance with Redaction Orders Is Mandatory
- Government agencies (e.g., Registrar General, NIC) and private platforms (e.g., IndianKanoon) are legally bound to comply with redaction orders issued by courts
- Failure to comply within the stipulated timeline (e.g., 10 days in this case) may invite contempt proceedings
Precedents Set a Clear Standard
- The judgment reinforces the binding nature of precedents like SJ v. Union of India and XXX v. Registrar General
- Lower courts and tribunals must follow these precedents when adjudicating similar claims, ensuring consistency in the application of the Right to Be Forgotten
