Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that when a similar issue came up before the Delhi High Court recently, interim orders were passed directing the concerned websites to redact the name of the petitioner therein. It is also informed to this Court that a new Right called as Right to be Forgotten is sought to be included in the list of Rights that are already available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(6) There is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit, or to impose a prior restraint upon the press/media.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

20.The decision in R.Rajagopal has been affirmed by the 9-judge bench in K.S Puttaswamy’s case. In fact, the opinions of D.Y Chandrachud, J (for himself and Khehar, C.J, Agrawal and Nazeer, JJ) and R.F Nariman, J expressly cite and approve the aforesaid principles from R.Rajagopal’s case. It must, therefore, follow that judgments of courts being public records, the right to privacy cannot subsist. The concurring judgment of S.K Kaul, J also recognizes this position. At paragraph 636, the learned judge took note of what has now come to be termed as “the right to be forgotten” and has opined thus:

22.It would, therefore, follow that the “right to be forgotten” cannot exist in the sphere of administration of justice particularly in the context of judgments delivered by Courts. An exception to the aforesaid position can be seen in cases of victims of rape and other sexual offences where the Supreme Court itself has directed that the identity of victims cannot be disclosed [See https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Nipun Saxena v Union of India, 2019 2 SCC 703]. Statutory prohibitions against the disclosure of the identity of the victim and witnesses are also found in provisions like Section 228-A IPC, Section 327(3) Cr.P.C, Section 23 of the POCSO Act, etc. Thus, unless a case falls within the ambit of the exceptions, the general principle must govern.

24.The crux of the petitioner’s case is that the continued reflection of his name as an accused in the judgment of this Court in Cr.A (MD) 321 of 2011 is a violation of his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution or more specifically, its subset, the right to be forgotten. However, it is a settled position of law that a judicial order of a Court cannot violate fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed as under: