Mask names of those acquitted in criminal cases from digital records, HC tells media

Subject: Polity

Section: Constitution

Context:

The Karnataka High Court, through Justice M. Nagaprasanna, advised the media to proactively remove or anonymize the names of individuals acquitted in criminal cases from their digital archives to avoid forcing these individuals to seek legal remedies for name removal.

Details:

This suggestion was made alongside a directive to the High Court’s registry to anonymize the personal details of a 27-year-old who was exonerated in a criminal case, emphasizing the individual’s right to dignity.
The court highlighted that once a person is acquitted, discharged, or has their criminal proceedings quashed, allowing their association with the crime to persist online contradicts the essence of life protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The court’s stance aims to facilitate a form of digital forgetting, aligning with human tendencies to forget, invoking the right to privacy principles established in the K.S. Puttaswamy case by the apex court.

‘Right of Erasure’:

The Karnataka High Court referenced the recently notified Personal Data Protection Act, effective from August 11, 2023, highlighting its recognition of the “right of erasure” of personal data.
This move aligns with global legal trends towards the rights to be forgotten, correction, and erasure of personal data.
The court cited a 2018 UK judgment (NT1 Vs Google LLC) that underscored the right of individuals, even those acquitted or discharged by competent courts, to live with dignity, challenging Google’s resistance to delisting such individuals.
Additionally, the High Court referred to a Supreme Court directive to anonymize the names in a case regarding sexual offenses and a 2023 Delhi High Court order directing media platforms to remove the name of an accused whose criminal case was quashed following a settlement.
These references demonstrate a growing legal consensus on the importance of protecting individuals’ dignity and privacy post-acquittal.

K S Puttaswamy case and Right to Privacy:

In August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd) Vs Union of India unanimously held that Indians have a constitutionally protected fundamental right to privacy that is an intrinsic part of life and liberty under Article 21.
It held that privacy is a natural right that inheres in all natural persons and that the right may be restricted only by state action that passes each of the three tests:
- First, such state action must have a legislative mandate;
- Second, it must be pursuing a legitimate state purpose; and
- Third, it must be proportionate i.e., such state action — both in its nature and extent, must be necessary in a democratic society and the action ought to be the least intrusive of the available alternatives to accomplish the ends.

Source: TH