Right to be Forgotten Upheld by Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently affirmed the right to be forgotten, especially for those acquitted of criminal charges, recognizing it as an inherent aspect of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja emphasized that an accused who has been acquitted or honorably discharged should not be burdened with the stigma of accusation for life. The Court observed, “This Court in plethora of cases has come across the issues where FIRs are registered with any rhyme or reason or out of knee jerk reactions and the proceedings are ultimately quashed by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We, therefore, are of the considered view that after the accused gets blame-free by a process of law, the respondent cannot be seen to be carrying the sword of his being accused for all his life.”

The Court highlighted that the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone are integral to the right to privacy, which is part of the right to life under Article 21. “In the crime, once the accused gets acquitted/honorably discharged by a competent Court of law or this Court, and the order becomes final, the shadow of crime, if permitted to continue and substitute its place for the shadow of dignity on any citizen, it would be a travesty of the concept of life under Article 21. Every person has a right to live with dignity,” the Court stated.

These observations were made during an appeal by the State against the acquittal of an accused in a rape case. The case involved a victim who, at the age of 17, had eloped with the accused who later married her. It was alleged that the accused had raped the victim, but the prosecution could not establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Notably, the victim and the accused later married and had a child.

The Court questioned the State’s decision to appeal the acquittal, particularly as the victim was now living a happy married life with the accused. “Apart from the above, the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of the prosecution and has clearly admitted that she had married the respondent and has a three years old daughter out of this wedlock. Obviously, in such circumstances, there was no occasion for the State in fact to file the present appeal as once it has come on record that the prosecutrix is living happy married life with the respondent, then, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix,” the Court remarked.

The Court refused to interfere with the acquittal, stating that it would be unjust to label the child’s father as a criminal. It further stressed the importance of erasing the names of both the victim and the accused from digital records to prevent irreparable harm to their lives and future prospects.

The Court ordered the masking and erasure of the names from the digital databases of the Bilaspur Court and the High Court to protect their privacy and dignity.

The State was represented by Senior Additional Advocate General IN Mehta, Additional Advocate General Sharmila Patial, and Additional Advocate General Navlesh Verma.

Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.