No Public Interest Served By Keeping Information Alive On Internet: Delhi HC Directs Removal of Estranged Couple's Names From Records
The Delhi High Court ordered the removal of an estranged couple's names from the records of a criminal case related to their matrimonial dispute.
A Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan, while passing this ruling, also allowed the man to approach various public search engines and portals to request that his and his wife’s identities be masked. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the principles of 'right to privacy' and the 'right to be forgotten' in such cases.
The Court said, "The need to allow the masking of names of individuals acquitted of any offence or when criminal proceedings against such persons are quashed, emanates from the most basic notions of proportionality and fairness,”
Senior Advocate SD Salwan appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar appeared for the Respondents.
It further noted, “While the access to information is a fundamental aspect of democracy, the same cannot be divorced from the need to balance the right to information of the public with the individual’s right to privacy. This is especially when after the quashing of the proceedings, no public interest can be served by keeping the information alive on the internet."
The Court asserted that allowing the continued public display of accusations against an individual who has been cleared of all charges would be unjust. It added, “Such would be contrary to the individual’s right to privacy which includes the right to be forgotten, and the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,”
In May 2024, the Delhi High Court had previously quashed a trial court's order that had directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the man based on his wife’s complaint. Following this, the man requested the removal of the case details from public access.
In granting the petition, the Court instructed that, moving forward, the Registry should not use the names of the parties involved. Instead, the man should be referred to as 'ABC' and his former wife as 'XYZ' in the case records.
Cause Title: ABC v. State & Anr., [2024:DHC:8921]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate SD Salwan, along with Advocates Arvind Chaudhary, Sachin Chaudhary, and Vinay Yadav.
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar, with Advocates Ajay Verma and Vaishnav Kirti Singh