Himachal Pradesh: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has delivered a significant order upholding the “right to be forgotten” as part of the right to privacy, while dismissing the State’s appeal against an acquittal in a criminal case.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja dismissed the State’s application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and other acts.
The court noted that the prosecutrix, who was over 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense, has since married the respondent, and they have a daughter together.
Emphasizing the importance of the right to privacy, the court observed, “Right to oblivion; right to be forgotten are principles evolved by democratic nations as one of the facets of information privacy.”
The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, which recognized the right to be forgotten as part of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court stated, “People change, and an individual should be able to determine the path of his life and not be stuck only on a path he/she initially treaded.”
Expressing its view on balancing privacy rights with other considerations, the court noted, “This right, as a part of the larger right to privacy, has to be balanced against other fundamental rights like the freedom of expression or freedom of the media, fundamental to a democratic society.”
The court directed the masking of the names of the respondent and prosecutrix from court records, stating, “Once that be so, obviously, the names of the prosecutrix and the appellant need to be masked/erased so that they do not appear/be visible in any search engine, lest the same is likely to jeopardize and cause irreparable hardship, prejudice, etc., not only to the respondent and the prosecutrix but also to their little daughter in their day-to-day life, career prospects, etc.”
In conclusion, while dismissing the State’s appeal, the court upheld the right to be forgotten and directed the masking of names in digital records to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.
