3 weeks ago
Karnataka High Court orders Google to mask acquitted woman's name
A woman was once accused of a crime, but a court decided she was not guilty and said she was innocent.
Even after that, her name kept showing up online as if she were still a suspect.
People searching for her name on websites like Google could see the old court documents.
This made it hard for her to find jobs, and she told the judge about it.
The judge agreed that this was unfair.
He said the internet does not forget things, but people should not be hurt forever by old mistakes.
So the court told Google and legal websites to hide her name from those old records.
The court also said that people have a right to privacy, but that must be balanced with free speech.
Hidden her name does not erase the case itself, it just protects her.
The woman now lives in Sweden, where she was given refugee status by the United Nations.
The Karnataka High Court ordered Google, Indian Kanoon and authorities to mask a woman's name in digital records after her 2019 acquittal.
The woman was accused number 3 in a Bengaluru case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Foreigners Act, Information Technology Act and IPC, and was acquitted on March 28, 2019.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said the continued online portrayal of the woman as an accused risks making the acquittal a 'paper declaration'.
The woman was granted refugee status and permanent residence in Sweden and now lives in Stockholm, where the online records were affecting her professional prospects.
The court rejected 'Pandora's box' objections but noted the right to be forgotten must be balanced against freedom of expression.
The order directs masking the petitioner's name, not erasing the underlying criminal proceedings.
- Who
- A woman acquitted of criminal charges in 2019, Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court, Google, Indian Kanoon and court registrars.
- What
- The Karnataka High Court ordered digital records to be masked so the acquitted woman's name no longer appears online in connection with the criminal case.
- Where
- Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru, India; the woman now resides in Stockholm, Sweden.
- When
- The order was made on July 27, following her acquittal on March 28, 2019.
- Why
- To ensure the final acquittal has meaningful consequences and to protect the woman's dignity, privacy and professional prospects from perpetual online stigma.
Court and petitioner's position
Opposing authorities' position
Fear of similar petitions
Court and petitioner's position
Constitutional rights cannot be denied because others may seek the same relief; courts adjudicate rights by testing the legitimacy of claims against the Constitution.
Opposing authorities' position
Granting the masking could open the 'flood gates' and a 'Pandora's box', leading to many similarly placed litigants seeking identical directions.
Right to be forgotten vs freedom of expression
Court and petitioner's position
The right to be forgotten is part of informational privacy, and a final acquittal should protect an individual from perpetual stigma and needless humiliation.
Opposing authorities' position
The right to be forgotten is not an unrestricted right to erase history and must be balanced against freedom of expression and freedom of media.
Key facts
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- Judge
- Justice M Nagaprasanna
- Acquittal date
- March 28, 2019
- Case location
- Bengaluru, India
- Charges
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Foreigners Act, Information Technology Act, Indian Penal Code
- Directives
- Google, Indian Kanoon, the state and registrar generals to mask the petitioner's name in digital records (writ of mandamus)
- Current residence
- Stockholm, Sweden (refugee status and permanent residence)
- Relief nature
- Masking of name only; not erasure of the criminal proceedings
Quotes
Justice M Nagaprasanna
Judge of the Karnataka High Court
“"A Court of law may pronounce innocence in its judgment, but if the virtual world continues to portray the individual as an accused, the acquittal risks becoming a paper declaration, bereft of any meaningful consequence in the lived realities of the individual."”
indianexpress.com
“"This right, as a part of the larger right to privacy, has to be balanced against other fundamental rights like the freedom of expression, or freedom of media, fundamental to a democratic society."”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Delhi High Court Defends Public Interest in Name-Based Legal Searches
India's 'right to be forgotten' threatens collective memory and history
Delhi High Court orders takedown of objectionable content featuring Tabu
Delhi High Court Protects Tabu's Personality Rights From AI Deepfakes
Delhi High Court Orders Removal of Khushi Kapoor's Obscene Content
Telangana High Court refuses to quash woman's case over recording
Supreme Court to hear plea challenging Delhi Police facial recognition
Doxxing and data leaks threaten India's digital dignity
Mumbai Society Rules on CCTV and Property Transfers
