Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. This Court, in plethora of cases, comes about issues where crimes are registered without any rhyme or reason and lead to quashment of those proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., sometimes on the sole score that it was frivolous or an act of wreaking vengeance, inter alia. It is therefore, after the accused gets blame-free by a process of law, he cannot be seen to be carrying the sword of him being accused on his head, for all his life. Right to oblivion; right to be forgotten are the principles evolved by the democratic nations, as one being a facet of right to informational privacy. Countries like France and Italy, had by themselves evolved the concept of right to oblivion, which dates back to 19th century. Europe, in the European Union has, over privacy and personal data, evolved the principle of right to be forgotten, as a right to be a part of ones right to personality, which encompasses dignity, honour and right to a private life. The aforesaid principles evolved from time to time, can be paraphrased into what could become right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY(RETD) v. UNION OF INDIA1. The Apex Court considers various facets of privacy; one such (2017) 10 SCC 1 NC: 2024:KHC:14572 privacy is informational privacy. On informational privacy, the Apex Court observes as follows:

(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court considers the entire spectrum the right to privacy and the 'right to be forgotten' evolved in the European Union Regulation of 2016, by the European Parliament. The Apex Court recognizes the right to be forgotten to be a basic right under the right to informational privacy. It has observed the right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and, to be able to control his or her own life would encompass his right to control over its existence on the internet. The Apex Court observes that the impact of digital age results in information on the internet being permanent. Humans forget, but the internet does not forget and does not let humans forget. Therefore, the soul of the judgment of the Apex Court quoted supra is that the footprints in certain circumstances should not be permitted to remain, as it is an anti-thesis to right to be forgotten.

1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has entered appearance and joins in the request made by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner submits that the display of her name in the public domain with respect to offences committed on the modesty of woman and Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) has caused immense loss by way of social stigma and infringement of her personal privacy. Even if the name of the respondent No. 1 appears, it causes the same result. The petitioner pleads the 'right to be forgotten' and 'right of eraser' being rights of privacy, the name of the petitioner as well as the respondent be removed/masked along with the address, identification details and case numbers to the extent that the same are not visible for search engines.

11. The said URLs shall be removed within 48 hours and the access to the same shall be blocked by the respondents.

12. Insofar as the Indian Express is concerned, one week's time is granted to the said respondent to remove the articles."

(Emphasis supplied) The High Court of Delhi permits masking of the name of the accused in all the search engines.

14. Evolving this concept of a right to be forgotten or right to erasure have been the subject matter of the Personal Data Protection Bills notified from time to time. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 recognizes the right to be forgotten. Likewise, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 also recognizes the