Read Time: 09 minutes

“There must be a proper policy formulated in this regard by means of specific rules. In other words, some basic criteria or parameters must be fixed, failing which, such an exercise will lead to utter confusion.”

The Madras High Court dismissing a plea that requested the Court to ‘literally’ redact the name of the acquitted accused from the judgment of the court, overturned its earlier prima facie conclusion in another case, and held that there will be ramifications if such a generalized order is passed.

The Single Bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed,

“This Court came to a prima facie conclusion that an accused person is entitled to have their name redacted from the judgments or orders and more particularly the ones that are available in the public domain and which are accessible through search engines. However, this Court felt that there may be ramifications if such a generalised order is passed and directions are issued. In other words, this Court felt that there are certain finer aspects which have to be considered failing which, it may open up flood gates.”

Stressing over the fact that the criminal justice system that is prevalent in this country is far from satisfactory, the Court further observed,

“In various cases involving heinous crimes, this Court helplessly passes orders and judgments of acquittal due to slipshod investigation dishonest witnesses and lack of an effective witness protection system. This Court honestly feels that our criminal justice system is yet to reach such standards where courts can venture to pass orders for redaction of name of an accused person on certain objective criteria prescribed by rules or regulations.”

“More appropriate to await the enactment of the Data Protection Act and Rules”

Stating that though in the present case in its earlier order the court felt that it had to come to the rescue until the legislature ultimately enacts the Data Protection Act, the Court held that on a deeper review of the issue, the court is of the view that the same is not as simple and straight as it sounded. The Court held,

“It will be more appropriate to await the enactment of the Data Protection Act and Rules thereunder, which may provide an objective criterion while dealing with the plea of redaction of names of accused persons who are acquitted from criminal proceedings. If such uniform standards are not followed across the country, the constitutional courts will be riding an unruly horse which will prove to be counterproductive to the existing system.”

Other Significant Observations

The petition before the Court raised some significant questions of law that High Court Single Judge Bench dealt with in a five-hour “Marathon” hearing on July 27, 2021.

‘Right to be Forgotten’:

Responding to the primary relief sought by the petitioner, in the light of ‘Right to be Forgotten’, to the extent of getting his description permanently altered in the cause title and the body of the judgment of the Court, the High Court held 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……. Thus, unless a case falls within the ambit of the exceptions, the general principle must govern.”

Reflection of name in order/judgment after acquittal cannot violate Right to Privacy:

Dealing with the argument of the petitioner that the continued reflection of his name as an accused in the judgment of this Court is in violation of his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution or more specifically, its subset, the right to be forgotten, the Court reiterating the Supreme Court Judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) observed,

“It is a settled position of law that a judicial order of a Court cannot violate fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.”

A writ cannot lie against itself:

Refusing to direct a writ of Mandamus against a judgment and order passed by this Court, the Single Judge Bench held that,

“The point here is that since the High Court is one indivisible institution, a writ cannot lie against a judgment or order passed by it for that would tantamount to the High Court issuing writs against itself.”