MADURAI: Observing that even adults are entitled to the ‘principle of fresh start’ which has been statutorily enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court recently delivered a landmark verdict protecting the 'right to privacy' and 'right to be forgotten' of a man who was acquitted by the high court in a sexual assault case in 2011. The bench comprising justices Anita Sumanth and R Vijayakumar ordered the redaction of his name and personal details from the judgement.
The bench gave the verdict while allowing an appeal filed by the man, challenging the dismissal of his petition seeking redaction of his name from the aforesaid judgement in 2021. The judges observed, "Being a service institution committed to serving the cause of justice, the courts cannot close their eyes to the concerns of privacy and the right that enure in the litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant."
In the present internet age, where there is uncontrolled and unbridled dissemination and availability of information, the right to privacy of an individual would have to be finely balanced with the right of the citizen 'to know', said the bench. Hence, granting the relief of masking or redaction of information from certified copies that are issued for public circulation must be enabled by courts in appropriate situations, on a case to case basis, the bench added.
Though the provisions of Section 8(7) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which deal with the 'Right of Erasure', have not been extended to the courts by virtue of Section 17 of the Act, there is nothing that prevents the courts from providing such succour or solace to deserving persons upon being so convinced, the judges opined.
The phenomenon of open courts has literally brought justice as well as the justice dispensation system to the doorsteps of citizens. However, there should be a fine balance between the concept of open justice and that of the privacy of the litigant, the judges pointed out. There could be no totalitarian application of either one concept as that would defeat the purpose of both equally valid concepts, they said.
The judges further noted that the single judge had dismissed the man's petition by observing that our criminal justice system is yet to reach such standards where courts can venture to pass orders for redaction of the name of an accused person. Though it may be true, the fallibility or vulnerability of the criminal justice system must not stand in the way of rendition of justice elsewhere, if, when, and where it is called for, they opined.
They pointed out that the court, while acquitting the man, had specifically mentioned that he was not acquitted on benefit of doubt and has earned the acquittal by disproving the prosecution case. The acquittal is thus full, complete and unconditional, they said. "The petitioner has moved on and there is no public interest in retaining, as part of public record, a chapter of his life that has no relevance now. The fact that the ‘principle of fresh start’ has been statutorily enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015 cannot lead to the conclusion that adults are not entitled to the same," they observed and directed the Ikanoon web portal to take down the judgement from its site.
They also directed the Registry to redact the petitioner's name and other details relating to his identity from the judgement and ensure that only the redacted judgement is available for publication or for uploading. The full and unredacted version of the judgement should continue to be part of the record of the court, they added.