Fit Case To Invoke Right To Be Forgotten: Delhi HC Directs Removal Of Posts That Show Man's Involvement In Crime Even After His Acquittal
The Delhi High Court directed media houses including India Today Group and unknown persons (John Doe) to remove posts that showed the individual’s involvement in crime even after his acquittal.
The Court said that it is a fit case to invoke the right to be forgotten as the posts made by unknown persons on the social media platform ‘X’ have also equally injured the reputation of the plaintiff.
The Court was hearing an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a grant of ad-interim ex parte injunction.
The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, “right to freedom of expression of the press in the present case must give way to the right to privacy of the plaintiff especially when he has been exonerated of all the allegations leading to his honourable acquittal….Therefore, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the right to be forgotten in favour of the plaintiff.…it would be appropriate to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant nos. 1 to 4 as well as unknown persons (John Doe) who have made per se defamatory statements against the plaintiff on ‘X’.”
Advocate Sri Ram Verma appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Rishi K. Awasthi appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the plaintiff that despite his acquittal certain media houses, including defendants India Today Group, INDIADOTCOM Digital Pvt. Ltd., Mid Day Info Media Ltd., and The Indian Express, did not remove defamatory posts about the plaintiff. Legal notices issued by him led some to remove content, but others updated posts that revived the allegations levelled against him. The plaintiff claimed that such actions have damaged his reputation. He made a request to remove the defamatory content from the defendants' websites and 'X'.
The Court relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in XXXX vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, represented by State Public Prosecutor and Others, 2024 SCC Online Kar 18 where according to the Court it was observed, “after the accused gets blame-free by a process of law, he cannot be seen to be carrying the sword of him being accused on his head for all his life. The Court further noted that the right to oblivion; right to be forgotten are the principles evolved by the democratic nations, as one being a facet of right to informational privacy.”
The Court noted that apart from the existence of old news articles/posts on the internet, the plaintiff’s reputation has been injured on account of the updation of such posts which has again brought the plaintiff’s accusation under the public glare.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from posting/updating any posts in respect of an alleged criminal case from which the plaintiff has already been honourably acquitted. It also directed the defendants to remove/delete the impugned posts from their websites.
Cause Title: XXX v. India Today Group (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5535)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Sri Ram Verma and Adv. Sanjeev Babbar
Respondent: Adv. Rishi K. Awasthi, Adv. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Abhigyat Chatanya and Adv. Jasmeet Singh Bindra
