Digitization of courts brings privacy concerns. But India lacks the right to forget

Form of words:
a-
A+

wooWith the increase in digitization, especially of court records, privacy concerns are likely to be at the forefront of judicial and public discourse in the coming years. In this context, the right to be forgotten, or RTBF, as it has become more widely known, has become a buzzword. Since the decision of the European Court of google spain As in the 2014 case, there has been an ongoing debate about the framework of this right and the consequences of recognizing it. These consequences could be to the individual concerned, companies such as Google, the legal system as well as the general public.

However, before discussing the various issues related to RTBF, it is important to understand what it means. Simply put, RTBF is an aspect of the right to privacy that allows individuals to be asked to delete their personal information from publicly available sources on certain grounds. In the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where technology is intertwined with every aspect of our lives and a simple Google search can reveal a lot of personal information about a person, this right has acquired greater importance.

India lacks a strong RTBF

While there has been much discussion about the right to be forgotten in the West, any nuanced debate about the implications of its recognition in India has been very limited. In fact, RTBF mostly becomes a part of the news cycle whenever a court accepts or denies its applicability in India. As much has been written about the analysis of individual court cases involving the RTBF, this article aims to highlight the developments surrounding it in India and learn from the often-contradictory rulings on the issue coming from various high courts across the country. is to be consolidated.

In India, two main types of cases involving RTBF have come before the courts. The first category is what I call “simple RTBF” cases, and the second is the more complex category where RTBF is sought against judicial decisions. RTBF Simple cases usually involve individuals who wish to have certain personal information (which may be counterproductive to them) removed from the Internet and to direct search engines and social media platforms to remove such information. approaches the courts. For example, in August this year, the Delhi High Court allowed interim relief A Bengali actress has demanded a ban on the publication and streaming of her obscene videos on various online platforms including YouTube.

These cases generally do not give rise to very complex issues, and only such cases need to approach the courts due to the lack of data protection law in India. Such matters will come under the purview of the Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill, 2019, once a law is enacted. Clause 20 of the Bill covers the right to be forgotten and provides a mechanism for exercising this right. Consequently, most of the complaints raised in the cases falling under this category can be easily redressed when the Bill is finally passed and implemented.

read also, Drone policing during COVID highlights the need for data protection legislation in India

Judiciary vs People’s Privacy?

The issue becomes more complicated when it comes to the second category of RTBF cases before the Indian courts. In these cases the right to be forgotten is sought against judicial decisions. Some of these cases raise important questions such as the right of an accused person who has gone through trial and is ultimately acquitted to have their personal information destroyed, erased or repurposed from the public domain.

In April this year, the Delhi High Court had interim order Providing relief to a person who was acquitted in a narcotic case and seeking removal of his acquittal verdict from the online platform. However, in a similar caseThe Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court refused to modify the name of the accused (who was acquitted in a rape case) from his acquittal. The Court discussed at length the various concerns that may arise while applying RTBF in judicial decisions and observed that RTBF cannot exist in the domain of administration of justice, especially in the context of judgments delivered by courts.

read also, HC seeks response from Google, Twitter on man’s plea to remove conviction articles in criminal case

SC needs to make a new privacy policy

However, the Madras High Court acknowledged the need for a proper policy to address the issue and its absence would lead to confusion. in court words“If such uniform standards are not followed across the country, the constitutional courts will ride an unruly horse, which will prove to be counterproductive to the existing system.” The Supreme Court is in the best position to come up with such a privacy policy in consultation with the High Courts and the legal fraternity.

This policy should address how the judiciary plans to deal with privacy concerns, which give rise to vast amounts of data. It is important that the judiciary does not wait till the enactment of the PDP Bill to draft this policy. This is because Clause 36 of the PDP Bill anyway makes the RTBF unsuitable for the processing of personal data by any court or tribunal in India which is necessary for the exercise of any judicial function.

While drafting this policy, it is important to keep in mind the principle of open courts and the important objective of keeping the judiciary transparent and accountable. Finally, if the judiciary decides to recognize a person’s right to be forgotten in the context of judicial decisions, whatever mechanism it puts in place, it must be accessible to people from all sections of the society. Any right to privacy of individuals should not depend on their privilege, but should ensure their access to resources and the ability to approach the higher judiciary for relief. Going forward, it is essential for the judiciary to have a sound privacy policy for itself.

Apoorva Vidhi is a Research Fellow with the Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) Initiative at the Center for Legal Policy. Thoughts are personal.

This article is part of a series of opinion pieces on the making of a ‘judiciary for 21’
‘Century’ Vidhi with the knowledge partner of the Center for Legal Policy, ThePrint. read series here,

(Edited by Our Like)

subscribe our channel youtube And Wire