MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to grant relief to a man who, seven years after his acquittal in a rape case, sought direction to redact his name from the judgement citing social stigma.
The man claimed that whoever searches his name on the internet is able to access the said judgment in which he was identified as an accused. It has a serious impact on his reputation in the society, the man added.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh had prima facie (based on the first impression) opined that the petitioner is entitled to such a relief. But feeling that there are certain finer aspects that have to be considered failing which may open up floodgates of litigations, the judge had invited opinions from advocate associations and had held a five-hour marathon hearing last week. However, citing various aspects including the poor criminal justice system in India and lack of statutory backing, he dismissed the petition on Tuesday.
The poor criminal justice system
Justice Venkatesh observed that the prevailing criminal justice system in India is far from satisfactory as, in many cases, the Court acquits accused persons due to slipshod investigation, dishonest witnesses and lack of an effective witness protection system. Till the system reaches the right standards, the court cannot venture to pass orders for redaction of an accused’s name, the judge held.
The only document that saves honour
The judge wondered at which level of jurisdiction -trial court stage, appellate stage or revision stage- should the process of redaction be done. At every stage- from filing of complaint till facing trial- there are publications tarnishing the name of an accused. The only document in public domain that actually saves the honour of a person is the order or judgment of acquittal and erasing the name from it would prove counterproductive to the person concerned, the judge opined.
Such an order would hold good only in countries like the United States where, through a Court order, there can be complete destruction of the entire records of an accused person to the extent that he or she can even write ‘Nil’ in the relevant employment application column for criminal records, he remarked.
Not a violation of privacy
The court also added that mentioning the petitioner’s name in a judgment does not amount to violation of his ‘Right to Privacy’ or ‘Right to be forgotten’. It is a settled position of law that a judicial order of a court cannot violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution, he pointed out.
Principle of open justice
The judge also referred to various judgments, including a Supreme Court judgment passed in 2018, about how the principle of open justice is essential to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. “Public access to judgments of Courts is an integral precept of the concept of open justice, promoting the rule of law”, he inferred from the rulings.
No statutory backing
Justice Venkatesh also recalled a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014 where Google was directed to delist information complained against from its servers. However, he pointed out that there is a regulation titled ‘Right to erasure’ under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for all European Union member States but India does not have such a rule or regulation.
Hence, in the absence of any statutory backing, the judge opined that it would be more appropriate to await the enactment of the Data Protection Act and Rules, which may provide an objective criterion while dealing with such petitions. He also appreciated and thanked advocates for rendering their assistance in deciding the matter.