Madras High Court
V.Swaminathan vs The Registrar General on 8 December, 2021
Bench: P.N.Prakash, R.Hemalatha
W.P.No.SR73910 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.12.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.HEMALATHA
W.P.No.SR73910 of 2021
V.Swaminathan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 600 108.
2.The Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics),
High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 600 108.
3.The Registrar (Judicial),
High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 600 108. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to redact the name and
details of the petitioner's daughter viz., Kiruthika in the body of the
judgment dated 24.11.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.20192 of 2013 passed by this
Court.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.SR73910 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kulandaivelu
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents to redact the name and details of the petitioner's daughter viz., Kiruthika in the body of the judgment dated 24.11.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.20192 of 2013 passed by this Court.
2. Heard Mr.K.Kulandaivelu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. One “X” (husband) got married to “Y” (wife) and their marriage ran into rough weather resulting in them getting estranged. On a complaint given by “Y”, a case in Crime No.6 of 2011 was registered by the police and after completing the investigation, a final report in C.C.No.913 of 2012 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Alandur, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 312 and 506(I) IPC against “X” and his family members.
Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.SR73910 of 2021
4. During the pendency of the prosecution, “X” and “Y” entered into an agreement, under which, they decided to dissolve their marriage and also buried the hatchet.
5. Thereafter, “X” and “Y” approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.20192 of 2013 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the prosecution in C.C.No.913 of 2012 on the ground that the matter has been settled.
6. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 24.11.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.20192 of 2013, quashed the prosecution in C.C.No.913 of 2012.
7. While that being so, the petitioner, who is the father of “Y”, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for redaction of his daughter's name from all the records of this Court. Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.SR73910 of 2021
8. Since the Registry has entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of this petition, the same has been posted before this Court under the caption 'for maintainability'.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court of Karnataka in Vasunathan Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Others1, has passed an order of redaction in tune with the “Right to be Forgotten” principle that obtains in Western countries.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as well the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in XXX Vs. Union of India and Others2.
11. Of course, in that case, the learned Single Judge of the Kerala Court, after elaborate discussion, has tagged the matter with other such matters that are pending before a Division Bench and has merely stated that the name of the parties will not appear in his order alone. 1 decided on 23.01.2017 in W.P.No.62038 of 2016 (GM-RES) 2 decided on 15.03.2021 in W.P.(C).No.6687/2017(R) Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.SR73910 of 2021
12. We gave our anxious consideration to the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
13. In this writ petition, the Registrar General of this Court has been made as the first respondent. We are afraid that a writ of this nature cannot be entertained, inasmuch as, the High Court is a court of record and in the absence of rules, a mandamus as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
Hence, we uphold the objection raised by the Registry and close this writ petition as not maintainable at the SR stage itself. No costs.
(P.N.P.,J.) (R.H.,J.) 08.12.2021 nsd Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.SR73910 of 2021 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and R.HEMALATHA, J.
nsd To
1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 108.
2.The Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics), High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 108.
3.The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 108.
W.P.No.SR73910 of 2021 08.12.2021 Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis