Right To Be Forgotten Is An Inherent Aspect Of Right To Privacy: Himachal Pradesh HC Directs Masking Of Names Of Acquitted 'Rape Accused' & Prosecutrix In Digital Records

The case involved a victim who, at the age of more than 17 in 2017, had voluntarily eloped with the accused after he proposed marriage. Subsequently, allegations of rape were raised against him, but the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Notably, the victim and the accused had married, and they had a child together.

A Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja said, “There can be no dispute that right of privacy of which the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone are inherent aspects. Once that be so, obviously, the names of the prosecutrix as also the appellant need to be masked/erased so that they do not appear/visible in any search engine, least the same is likely to jeopardize and cause irreparable hardship, prejudice etc., not only to the respondent and the prosecutrix, but to their little daughter in their day-today life, career prospects etc. etc..."

Senior Additional Advocate General IN Mehta appeared for the Appellant.

The Court questioned the rationale behind the State's decision to appeal the acquittal, especially after it was established that the victim was leading a contented married life with the accused. The Court noted, “Apart from the above, the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of the prosecution and has clearly admitted that she had married the respondent and has a three years old daughter out of this wedlock. Obviously, in such circumstances, there was no occasion for the State in fact to file the present appeal as once it has come on record that the prosecutrix is living happy married life with the respondent, then, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.”

The Court said, “In the crime, once the accused gets acquitted/honorably discharged by a competent Court of law or this Court, and the order becomes final, the shadow of crime, if permitted to continue and substitute its place for the shadow of dignity on any citizen, it would be a travesty of the concept of life under Article 21. Every person has a right to live with dignity.”

Considering the circumstances, the Court declined to interfere with the acquittal, citing that it would be unduly harsh and unjustified to label the accused as a criminal, particularly since he had married the victim and fathered a child with her.

Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. X, [2024:HHC:5102]

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Additional Advocate General IN Mehta, Additional Advocate General Sharmila Patial, and Additional Advocate General Navlesh Verma