Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. While examining the pages of the case records, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has uploaded the said photos/videos on a social media platform i.e. Facebook and with the intervention of the police, after some days, he deleted the said objectionable contents from the Facebook. In fact, the information in the public domain is like toothpaste, once it is out of the tube one can't get it back in and once the information is in the public domain it will never go away. Under the Indian Criminal Justice system a strong penal action is prescribed against the accused for such heinous crime but there is no mechanism available with respect to the right of the victim to get the objectionable photographs deleted from the server of the Facebook. The different types of harassment, threats and assaults that frighten citizens in regard to their online presence pose serious concerns for citizens. There is an unprecedented escalation of such insensitive behavior on the social media platforms and the victim like the present one could not get those photos deleted permanently from server of such social media platforms like facebook. Though the statute prescribes penal action for the accused for such crimes, the rights of the victim, especially, her right to privacy which is intricately linked to her right to get deleted in so far as those objectionable photos have been left unresolved. There is a widespread and seemingly consensual convergence towards an adoption and enshrinement of the right to get deleted or forgotten but hardly any effort has been undertaken in India till recently, towards adoption of such a right, despite such an issue has inexorably posed in the technology dominated world. Presently, there is no statute in India which provides for the right to be forgotten/getting the photos erased from the server of the social media platforms permanently. The legal possibilities of being forgotten on line or off line cries for a widespread debate. It is also an undeniable fact that the implementation of right to be forgotten is a thorny issue in terms of practicality and technological nuances. In fact, it cries for a clear cut demarcation of institutional boundaries and redressal of many delicate issues which hitherto remain unaddressed in Indian jurisdiction. The dynamics of hyper connectivity- the abundance, pervasiveness and accessibility of communication network have redefined the memory and the prescriptive mandate to include in the technological contours is of pressing importance.

10.Presently, there is no statue which recognizes right to be forgotten but it is in sync with the right to privacy, which was hailed by the Apex Court as an integral part of Article 21 (right to life) in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.).6 However, the Ministry of Law and Justice, on recommendations of Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee, has included the Right to be forgotten which refers to the ability of an individual to limit, delink, delete, or correct the disclosure of the personal information on the internet that is misleading, embarrassing, or irrelevant etc. as a statutory right in Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019. The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy- 9J.)has held right to be let alone as part of essential nature of 6(2017) 10 SCC 1 privacy of an individual. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under:

12. The Ld. Single Judge of High Court of Karnataka in the case of Vasunathan v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka8 has acknowledged the right to be forgotten, keeping in line with the trend in the Western countries where it is followed as a matter of rule. The High Court of Delhi in its recent judgment in Zulfiqar Ahman Khan vs. Quintillion Business Media Pvt. Ltd. and Ors9 has also recognized the "right to be forgotten" and 'Right to be left alone' as an integral to part of individual's existence. The Karnataka High Court in {Name Redacted} vs. The Registrar General10 recognized "Right to be forgotten" explicitly, though in a limited sense. The petitioner's request to remove his daughter's name from a judgment involving claims of marriage and forgery was upheld by the Court. It held that recognizing right to be forgotten would parallel initiatives by 'western countries' which uphold this right when 'sensitive' cases concerning the 'modesty' or 'reputation' of people, especially women, were involved. However, the High Court of Gujarat in Dharamraj 82017 SCC OnLine Kar 424 2019(175) DRJ 660 10Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.36554-36555/2017decided on 4th January, 2018 Bhanushankar Dave v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.,11 in a case involving the interpretation of the rules of the High Court has taken a contrary and narrow approach.

13. The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011, India's first legal framework recognized the need to protect the privacy of personal data, but it failed to capture the issue of the "Right to be forgotten". The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra) held that purpose limitation is integral for executive projects involving data collection - unless prior permission is provided, third parties cannot be provided access to personal data.12This principle is embodied in S.5 of the yet- to-be-implemented Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019. Purpose Limitation enhances transparency in data processing and helps examine the proportionality of the mechanism used to collect data for a specific purpose. Moreover, it prevents the emergence of permanent data 'architectures' based on interlinking databases without consent. In the present case the proposition of purpose limitation is not applicable as the 11[MANU/GJ/0029/2017] 12See Para 166 of K.S. Puttaswamy Judgment question of seeking consent does not arise at all. No person much less a woman would want to create and display gray shades of her character. In most of the cases, like the present one, the women are the victims. It is their right to enforce the right to be forgotten as a right in rem. Capturing the images and videos with consent of the woman cannot justify the misuse of such content once the relation between the victim and accused gets strained as it happened in the present case. If the right to be forgotten is not recognized in matters like the present one, any accused will surreptitiously outrage the modesty of the woman and misuse the same in the cyber space unhindered. Undoubtedly, such an act will be contrary to the larger interest of the protection of the woman against exploitation and blackmailing, as has happened in the present case. The sloganeering of "betibachao" and women safety concerns will be trampled.