JORAWER SINGH MUNDY V.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: W.P.(C) 3918/ 2020 &CM APPL. 11767/2021
Petition:..JORAWER SINGH MUNDY@ JORAWER SINGH MUNDY
Through Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Kumar
V.
Respondent:.……………………….. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Through Advocate: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi
Judgement Date: 12.04.2021
CORAM: Justice Rekha Palli
INTRODUCTION
The petitioner was professional of Indian origin but
an American citizen by birth. A case under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 was lodged against him. Thetrial court acquitted him in
2011.But judgement is still available on social platforms., Google, Indian
Kanoon and vLex.in which was affected his professional life a lot as every employerdoing
his background verification get his name in case. So petitioner file a petition
for the remover of case form mentioned platform.
CASE ISSUE
1. Can
court order be removed from online platform.
The issue requires the examination of both Right to
privacy for petitioner and Right to Information for public and maintenance of
transparency in judicial records.
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Article 21 of Indian Constitution aim issue revolve
around Right to Privacy covered in case K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India,
2017.
CASE FACTS
· The
petitioner is an American citizen, who visit India in 2009 and a case was filed
against him under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
· In
2011, trial court acquitted him in the following case.
· After
returning to United States the petitioner pursue law.
· Later
on he realize of an disadvantage that he has because of availability of
following case judgement on the internet.
· Whenever
any potential employer goes for the background verification before hiring him
can easily get his case details which was giving him great lost.
· Therefore,
he send notice requesting Google India, Private Ltd., Google LLC, Indian
Kanoon, and vLex.in for removal of his judgement from their portal.
· vLex.in
responded the notice by removing the judgement from portal while other platform
didn’t respond.
· Then
he filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court, requesting that the
judgement be deleted from all respondent sites, respecting the Petitioner’s
Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
· The
court noted that the issue is one that necessitates consideration of the
Petitioner’s Right to Privacy, as well as the public’s Right to Information and
the preservation of transparency in judicial records.
RESPONDENT
Ms. Shivalakshi Counsel, accepts notice on
respondents behave and submit that if Court directs the removal of the said
judgement, then respondents will act as per the order.
JUDGEMENT
The court concluded that the right
to be forgotten is in tangent to the Right to Privacy while giving the judgement
keep the judgement K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India which recognizes the right
to privacy in mind and also relied on its own order in Zulfiqar Ahman Khan V. Quintillion
Businessman Media Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
The court held that petitioner
personal and professional life has been hampered and further more damage is likely
to be cause if appropriate relief is not granted. So the court is of opinion
that the petitioner is entitled to some interim protection, while the legal
issues are pending adjudication by the Court. According the respondents were
directed to remove the mentioned judgement.
The Orissa High court in recent
judgement in Subhranshu Rout V. State of Odisha on 23rd November
2020, has also examined the aspect and applicability of the “Right to be
Forgotten” quo Right to Privacy, in detailed manner including the international
law on the subject like The EU, adopted the General Data ProtectionRegulation
(GDPR) and article 17 provide the right to erasure of certain categories of
personal data. Russia allows users to force a search engine to remove link to
personal information on grounds of irrelevancy, inaccuracy and violation of
law.
0 Comments