On February 27, 2024, the Madras High Court, in the case of Karthik Theodore v Registrar General and Ors., re-emphasised on the importance of redacting personal details from public judgments to safeguard individual’s privacy, without compromising on transparency in the present judicial system.
The judgment involved the Appellant seeking redaction of personal details from a judgment delivered in 2011, to protect his privacy. The Appellant argued that the disclosure of intimate details from the past, which were no longer relevant, was unnecessary and had negative consequences on his life, such as a denied visa application to Australia.
The Appellant also contended that his right to privacy envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, should be upheld, especially in cases where personal information could cause harm or embarrassment. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which established right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty.
On the other hand, the Respondents emphasized the importance of public access to court judgments, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India. As per the Respondents, redacting personal details would hinder transparency and access to justice.
The court noted the need to balance the concept of open justice with the right to privacy, acknowledging that privacy is a fundamental aspect of an individual’s right to life and dignity. Reinstating what has been held by the Supreme Court of India in K.S. Puttaswamy (Supra), the Court held that the right to privacy is an inalienable right, which also includes the “Right to be Forgotten”.
In its findings, the concerned authority was directed to take down the judgment delivered in 2011, from public domain, including redacting the name of the Appellant, to safeguard his privacy rights. The judgment also emphasized the need to respect an individuals’ right to privacy, even after legal proceedings have concluded, and underscored the importance of redacting personal information from public records to prevent unnecessary harm or repercussions on individuals’ personal life.
The scope, thrust, and object of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is to regulate the collection of data and simultaneously protect personal data. To achieve such a balance, the Court was of the view that the “Right to be Forgotten” or the “Right to be remembered well” cannot be denied to a person if the circumstances so commend it.
This judgment is a refreshing change in the spectrum of the new data protection law, wherein the significance of maintaining a balance between open justice and privacy rights has been highlighted by the court. Even though, court proceedings have been more accessible to the public at large, however, there is also a balancing need to protect the privacy of litigants.
AUTHORS: Manpreet Singh Lamba (Associate Partner) | Sanampreet Singh (Senior Associate)