Punjab Haryana HC orders removal of acquitted man’s name from records citing ‘right to be forgotten’
‘The remnants should not be allowed to haunt a person who has been exonerated by the court of his guilt,’ said the bench.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that the name of a corporate professional be redacted from digital records after he was acquitted in a criminal case, citing the individual’s “right to be forgotten”, The Times of India reported on Thursday.
“The remnants should not be allowed to haunt a person who has been exonerated by the court of his guilt,” the court observed, directing its registry and the Gurugram district court to redact the petitioner’s name from all public platforms, replacing it with “ABCD”.
The petitioner, a corporate professional with 20 years’ experience in India and the United States, had been falsely implicated in an FIR registered in April 2024 at Gurugram’s Cyber Cell West police station. The case, filed under the Indian Penal Code sections pertaining to extortion (384) and cheating by impersonations (419), along with sections of the Information Technology Act, was quashed by the High Court in September. His bail bonds were subsequently discharged in October.
Despite this, the petitioner told the court he was struggling to secure employment as his name continued to appear on the e-courts portal. He stated that while he had successfully cleared job interviews with multinational firms, including PayPal and Wells Fargo, he was denied employment offers after background verification.
Justice NS Shekhawat, in his ruling, highlighted that retaining such information online violated the individual’s right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s landmark Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India ruling – which established the right to privacy as a fundamental right – in recognising the petitioner’s right to be forgotten.
It also instructed search engines and social media platforms to mask the petitioner’s name in connection with the case.
While the court allowed the petitioner to approach other platforms for redaction, it stated: “Whenever the petitioner applies or approaches any social media or search engine, it is expected that they would also respect the ‘right to privacy’ and ‘right to be forgotten’ of the petitioner and shall remove any other material, which may be on the record, pertaining to the court proceedings of FIR.”
