Right to be forgotten: Karnataka High Court directs authorities to mask acquitted woman’s name from online records

Emphasising the “right to be forgotten” in the digital age, the High Court of Karnataka has directed search engines and judicial record-keepers to mask the name of a woman, who was acquitted back in 2019 of charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, from online records.

“In an age where a few keystrokes often substitute for human inquiry and digital search results frequently shape public perception, the continued visibility of an obsolete accusation inflicts a civil consequence far graver than the criminal proceedings themselves,” the court observed.

What is the right to be forgotten? | Explained

Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed registrars of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru City Civil Court, the State police, Google, and Indian Kanoon portal, to mask the petitioner-woman’s name from their digital records pertaining to the case. This direction enables the Internet to “forget” the individual’s association with the crime, allowing her to live a life free from the stigma of an obsolete accusation.

Iranian petitioner

The petitioner, an Iranian national, was one of the four accused prosecuted in 2013-14 for indulging in a prostitution racket through websites. However, all the accused were acquitted in 2019 by the trial court on finding several serious lapses by the police, including delayed registration of First Information Report and lack of sufficient evidence.

Preserving the record: On the right to be forgotten

Subsequently, the petitioner, who had come to India on a student visa from Iran, approached the United Nations seeking recognition as a refugee. She was given refugee status and permanent residence in Sweden, where she is residing at present.

Digital spectre

However, during her online search, she found her name linked to the crime in which she was acquitted and that prospective employers conducting routine background checks were confronted with the digital spectre of criminal prosecution, effectively “eclipsing the judicial vindication” she had received. This digital footprint, the High Court said, caused “grave prejudice” to her life.

Stating that an acquittal is not just a procedural formality but a “solemn judicial declaration” of innocence, the High Court said that “the law cannot permit a situation where the acquittal risks becoming a paper declaration, bereft of any meaningful consequence in the lived realities of the individual.”

‘Opening floodgates’

Dismissing concerns expressed on behalf of the High Court’s registry for masking the name from the court records citing that granting such relief would “open floodgates”, Justice Nagaprasanna stated, “If the so-called Pandora’s box is opened by the enforcement of a fundamental right, so be it… Constitutional guarantees are not to be rationed for fear that others may invoke them.”