Karnataka HC Upholds RTBF Online

Karnataka HC Upholds Right To Be Forgotten Online

Why in the News ?

The Karnataka High Court recognised the Right to be Forgotten by directing online platforms and judicial record-keepers to mask the identity of an acquitted woman, reinforcing privacy, dignity, and the meaningful effect of judicial acquittal in the digital era.

Right to Be Forgotten: Karnataka HC Ruling

Karnataka High Court Strengthens Digital Privacy Rights:

  • The Karnataka High Court directed Google, Indian Kanoon, the State Police, and court registries to mask the name of a woman acquitted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
  • The petitioner, an Iranian national, had been prosecuted in 2013–14 but was acquitted in 2019 due to:

○   Delay in registration of the First Information Report (FIR).

○   Lack of credible evidence.

○   Procedural lapses by investigating authorities.

  • The woman later obtained refugee status and permanent residence in Sweden, but online search results continued to associate her with the criminal case.
  • The Court observed that persistent online availability of obsolete criminal records harmed her employment opportunities and public reputation.
  • It ruled that an acquittal is a judicial declaration of innocence, and its benefits should not be undermined by digital records that perpetuate past allegations.

Significance of the Right to be Forgotten

  • The Court emphasised that in the digital age, search engine results significantly influence public perception, often replacing deeper human inquiry.
  • It held that continued online publication of accusations after acquittal imposes a civil and reputational penalty beyond the criminal proceedings.
  • The judgment reinforces:

○   Right to Privacy.

○   Human Dignity.

○   Reputation as an integral component of personal liberty.

  • Rejecting concerns that such orders could open the “floodgates” for similar petitions, the Court stated that constitutional rights cannot be denied merely because others may also seek them.
  • The ruling highlights the need to balance:

○   Transparency of judicial records, and

○   Protection of individuals from perpetual digital stigma after exoneration.

About Right to be Forgotten:

●  Right to be Forgotten (RTBF):

○   Refers to an individual’s right to seek removal, masking, or restriction of personal information from public access when it is no longer relevant or causes unjustified harm.

○   Not expressly mentioned in the Constitution but derived from the Right to Privacy.

●  Constitutional Basis:

○   Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty.

○   Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Recognised the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right.

●  Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023:

○   Provides individuals with rights relating to correction and erasure of personal data under specified conditions.

●  Judicial Position in India:

○   Indian courts have increasingly recognised RTBF in cases involving acquitted persons, victims of offences, and sensitive personal information.

○   The right is not absolute and must be balanced with:

■ Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)).

■ Public Interest.

■ Transparency of Judicial Proceedings.