REDACTED vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF JULY, 2026

R

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO. 22456 OF 2025 (GM-RES)



BETWEEN:

XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX







…PETITIONER

(BY SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE REGISTRAR,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
BENGALURU – 560 009.

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HEBBAL POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU – 560 024



Digitally signed
by
PADMAVATHI B
K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



(ALL THE R-1 TO R-3 ARE
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001)

4. GOOGLE INC-NO-3,
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
SADANANDANAGAR
BENNIGANAHALLI,
BENGALURU – 560 016.

5. THE INDIAN KANOON
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER
PROPRIETOR SUSHANT SINHA,
ST
OFFICE ADDRESS AT NO.724, 1 FLOOR,
TH TH
9 CROSS, 10 MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 038
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR A WRIT
OR ORDER OR DIRECTION OF APPROPRIATE IN NATURE TO
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 WITH A DIRECTION TO DELETE AND

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



MASK HER NAME FROM THE DIGITAL RECORDS OF S.C
NO.547/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE LXVIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, WHICH
IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.29/2014 OF HEBBAL POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE CITY, AS PER ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following
prayer:
"WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays
that this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ or order or direction to appropriate
in nature to respondent No.1 to 5 of S.C.No.547/2015 on
the file of Hon'ble LXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, which is arising out of
Crime No.29/2014 of Hebbal Police Station, Bangalore
City, as per Annexure - I and grant such other relief or
reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the
facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of
justice."

2. Heard Sri. Kariappa N.A., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner; Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and
Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner was drawn as accused No.3 in crime
No.29/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 7
of the Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act, 1956, Section 14 of the
Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 along with offences under Sections 370,
370A(2) and 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for
short).

4. A charge sheet comes to be filed and the matter
was committed to the Court of Session and was tried as
SC.No.547/2015. The petitioner along with others stood
acquitted of the offences in terms of the order dated
28.03.2019. The acquittal has become final. The subject
petition concerns the issue in the interregnum i.e., registration
of the crime in crime No.29/2014 till the date of acquittal, as
observed hereinabove.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



5. At the very threshold of the investigation, the
petitioner had approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition
No.1628/2014 connected with Criminal Petition Nos.1637/2014
and 1979/2014, seeking the protective umbrella of liberty
through enlargement on bail. This Court, upon consideration of
the circumstances then obtaining, allowed the petitions and
granted the relief sought. The criminal proceedings thereafter
traversed the entire course of trial and ultimately culminated in
an order of acquittal, the prosecution having failed to establish
the allegations against the petitioner. It is the petitioner's
emphatic assertion that she was, in truth, not the perpetrator
of the crime but one of its unfortunate victims.

6. Freed from the shackles of criminal prosecution, the
petitioner sought to rebuild a life that had been irretrievably
scarred by the ordeal of standing as an accused before a
criminal court. She approached the United Nations seeking
recognition as a refugee. Her application came to be favourably
considered and accepted, culminating in the grant of refugee
status and permanent residence in Sweden. The petitioner has
since made Stockholm her residence.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025




7. While browsing the internet through commonly
accessed search platforms such as Google and the legal
repository Indian Kanoon , the petitioner was confronted with an
unsettling reality. Despite the unequivocal acquittal that had
attained finality, her name continued to surface in the digital
ecosystem as though she remained an accused in a pending
criminal prosecution. The electronic footprints of the criminal
proceedings, preserved in digital records and legal databases
maintained by respondent Nos.1 to 5, continued to portray the
petitioner as accused No.3, unmindful of the judicial declaration
of her innocence. The acquittal had restored her legal status,
but the digital world remained frozen in time, perpetuating a
narrative that the justice delivery system itself had long erased.

8. The petitioner asserts that these indelible digital
imprints have cast a long and ominous shadow over her
prospects in Sweden. Prospective employers, upon conducting
routine background searches, are greeted not by the judgment
of acquittal, but by the lingering spectre of criminal
prosecution. The consequence is both immediate and profound:

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



opportunities for meaningful employment are either withheld or
silently denied, as the digital stigma eclipses the judicial
vindication that ought to have restored her reputation.

9. Sri. Kariappa, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, would vehemently contend that despite the acquittal
of the name of the petitioner still figures in the digital records,
let alone employment, even living with dignity becomes
difficult, as a click of the name reveals pendency of the criminal
case. Therefore, the petitioner's name must be masked in the
websites maintained by respondent Nos.1 to 5. Therefore,
would seek appropriate direction to the respondents.

10. Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that if such masking
is allowed, it would open flood gates and result in opening of a
Pandora's box, where every litigant may tomorrow come and
seek masking of the name. This should not be permitted in the
petition, it should be dismissed.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the available material on record.

12. The petitioner being accused No.3 in
SC.No.547/2015 is a matter of record. The offences alleged
against the petitioner are the ones punishable as
afore-narrated. The order of acquittal of the petitioner reads as
follows:
" ORDER

Acting under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C., accused
No.1 - Bidu Bhushan Mohapathra @ Rakesh @
John , accused No.2 - Atefeh Abolzadeh @ Sara
and accused No.3 - xxxxxx , are acquitted for the
offences punishable under Secs.4, 5, 7 of Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, Sec.14 of Foreigners
Act 1946, Sec. 67 of Information Technology Act
2000 and Secs. 370, 370A (2), 292 of I.P.C.

Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand
cancelled. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are directed to
execute personal bond along with a surety for a sum
of Rs.25,000/- each, as required under Sec.437(a)
of Cr.P.C.

MOs. 1 to 13, are ordered to be preserved in
view of split-up case against accused No.4- Gevin
Medis."

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



The reasons rendered by the concerned Court is that the
prosecution has miserably failed in driving home the guilt
beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the petitioner along
with others stood acquitted.

13. The acquittal of the petitioner has attained
unquestionable finality. The curtain has thus fallen upon
the criminal prosecution, and with it, every cloud of
suspicion that once hovered over the petitioner stands
judicially dispelled. An acquittal that has become final is
not a mere procedural culmination of a criminal trial; it is
a solemn judicial declaration that the prosecution has
failed to establish guilt and, consequently, a
reaffirmation of the presumption of innocence that the
law cherishes. The dignity that had lain eclipsed under
the long and oppressive shadow of criminal prosecution
stands restored to its rightful pedestal, and the insignia
of innocence, momentarily obscured by the pendency of
proceedings, once again adorns the individual in full
measure.
(Emphasis supplied)

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025




14. 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. The law cannot countenance such a
paradox. It thus becomes not merely appropriate, but
constitutionally imperative that the respondents take all
necessary measures to ensure that the names of persons who
stand honourably acquitted, and whose acquittal has attained
finality, are suitably masked from digital records and
searchable platforms wherever circumstances so warrant. A
final acquittal bears the imprimatur of innocence. It is a judicial
seal that must receive equal recognition in the digital sphere as
it does within the four walls of a courtroom. To permit
obsolete digital records to perpetually resurrect
allegations that have long been buried by a judgment of
acquittal would amount to allowing technology to defeat
justice and memory to triumph over judicial truth.
(Emphasis supplied)

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



15. The case at hand is a poignant illustration of such
injustice. The consequences are neither illusory nor speculative.
They strike at the very foundation of the petitioner's
professional aspirations, reputation and ability to lead a life of
dignity. The persistent digital association of the petitioner with
a criminal prosecution, despite the finality of acquittal,
undoubtedly places her career in jeopardy and visits upon her a
continuing civil disability for no fault of hers. The law, having
restored her innocence, cannot remain a silent spectator while
the digital world continues to perpetuate a narrative that stands
judicially extinguished.

16. This Court, in plethora of cases, comes about issues
where crimes are registered without any rhyme or reason and
lead to quashment of those proceedings in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., sometimes on the
sole score that it was frivolous or an act of wreaking
vengeance, inter alia . It is therefore, after the accused gets
blame-free by a process of law, she cannot be seen to be
carrying the sword of her being accused on her head, for all her
life. Right to oblivion; right to be forgotten are the principles

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



evolved by the democratic nations, as one being a facet of right
to informational privacy. Countries like France and Italy, had by
themselves evolved the concept of right to oblivion, which
th
dates back to 19 century. Europe, in the European Union has,
over privacy and personal data, evolved the principle of right to
be forgotten, as a right to be a part of ones right to personality,
which encompasses dignity, honour and right to a private life.
The aforesaid principles evolved from time to time, can be
paraphrased into what could become right to life under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. It becomes apposite to refer to
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JUSTICE K.S.
1
PUTTASWAMY(RETD) v. UNION OF INDIA . The Apex Court
considers various facets of privacy; one such privacy is
informational privacy. On informational privacy, the Apex
Court observes as follows:
“Informational privacy

629. The right of an individual to exercise control
over his personal data and to be able to control his/her
own life would also encompass his right to control his
existence on the internet. Needless to say that this
would not be an absolute right. The existence of such a
right does not imply that a criminal can obliterate his
past, but that there are variant degrees of mistakes,

1

(2017) 10 SCC 1

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



small and big, and it cannot be said that a person should
be profiled to the nth extent for all and sundry to know.

630. A high school teacher was fired after posting
on her Facebook page that she was “so not looking
forward to another [school] year” since the school
district's residents were “arrogant and snobby”. A flight
attendant was fired for posting suggestive photos of
herself in the company's uniform. [Patricia Sánchez Abril,
“Blurred Boundaries: Social Media Privacy and the
Twenty-First-Century Employee”, 49 Am Bus LJ 63 at p.
69 (2012).] In the pre-digital era, such incidents would
have never occurred. People could then make mistakes
and embarrass themselves, with the comfort that the
information will be typically forgotten over time.

631. The impact of the digital age results in
information on the internet being permanent.
Humans forget, but the internet does not forget
and does not let humans forget. Any endeavour to
remove information from the internet does not
result in its absolute obliteration. The footprints
remain. It is thus, said that in the digital world
preservation is the norm and forgetting a struggle
[ Ravi Antani, “the resistance of memory : could
the European union's right to be forgotten exist in
the united states?”, 30 Berkeley Tech LJ 1173
(2015).] .

632. The technology results almost in a sort
of a permanent storage in some way or the other
making it difficult to begin life again giving up past
mistakes. People are not static, they change and
grow through their lives. They evolve. They make
mistakes. But they are entitled to re-invent
themselves and reform and correct their mistakes.
It is privacy which nurtures this ability and
removes the shackles of unadvisable things which
may have been done in the past.

633. Children around the world create
perpetual digital footprints on social network
websites on a 24/7 basis as they learn their
“ABCs” : Apple, Bluetooth and chat followed by

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



download, e-mail, Facebook, Google, Hotmail and
Instagram. [Michael L. Rustad, Sanna Kulevska,
“Reconceptualizing the right to be forgotten to
enable transatlantic data flow”, (2015) 28 Harv JL
& Tech 349.] They should not be subjected to the
consequences of their childish mistakes and
naivety, their entire life. Privacy of children will
require special protection not just in the context of
the virtual world, but also the real world.

634. People change and an individual should
be able to determine the path of his life and not be
stuck only on a path of which he/she treaded
initially. An individual should have the capacity to
change his/her beliefs and evolve as a person.
Individuals should not live in fear that the views
they expressed will forever be associated with
them and thus refrain from expressing themselves.

635. Whereas this right to control
dissemination of personal information in the
physical and virtual space should not amount to a
right of total eraser of history, 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.

636. Thus, the European Union Regulation of
2016 [Regulation No. (EU) 2016/679 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 27-4-
2016 on the protection of natural persons with
regard to the processing of personal data and on
the free movement of such data, and repealing
Directive No. 95/46/EC (General Data Protection
Regulation).] has recognised what has been
termed as “the right to be forgotten”. This does
not mean that all aspects of earlier existence are
to be obliterated, as some may have a social
ramification. If we were to recognise a similar
right, it would only mean that an individual who is
no longer desirous of his personal data to be
processed or stored, should be able to remove it
from the system where the personal

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



data/information is no longer necessary, relevant,
or is incorrect and serves no legitimate interest.
Such a right cannot be exercised where the
information/data is necessary, for exercising the
right of freedom of expression and information, for
compliance with legal obligations, for the
performance of a task carried out in public
interest, on the grounds of public interest in the
area of public health, for archiving purposes in the
public interest, scientific or historical research
purposes or statistical purposes, or for the
establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
Such justifications would be valid in all cases of
breach of privacy, including breaches of data
privacy.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court considers the entire spectrum the right to
privacy and the ‘right to be forgotten’ evolved in the European
Union Regulation of 2016, by the European Parliament. The
Apex Court recognizes the right to be forgotten to be a basic
right under the right to informational privacy. It has observed
the right of an individual to exercise control over his/her
personal data and, to be able to control his or her own life
would encompass her right to control over its existence on the
internet. The Apex Court observes that the impact of digital age
results in information on the internet being permanent.
Humans forget, but the internet does not forget and does not

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



let humans forget. Therefore, the soul of the judgment of the
Apex Court quoted supra is that the footprints in certain
circumstances should not be permitted to remain, as it is an
anti-thesis to right to be forgotten.

17. The High Court of Delhi in the case of SJ v. UNION
2
OF INDIA , has held as follows:
“3. The petitioner is a 33-year-old XXXXX
graduate who unfortunately got embroiled in a criminal
case in relation to which XXXXX was registered under
Section 384 of the Penal Code, 1860, Sections 66-A and
67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The said
FIR resulted in a settlement and the same was quashed
in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1207 of 2022 vide
order dated 2-6-2022. The said order records that the
petitioner and Respondent 2 therein, had friendly
relations for the last 18 years and due to an immature
prank of the petitioner, the FIR got to be registered. The
relevant portion of the order quashing the FIR is set out
below :

“6. This petition is filed for quashing of FIR
No. 293 of 2021 under Section 384IPC registered
at PS Chittranjan Park, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom. Although, the FIR was
initially registered under Section 384IPC but later
on Sections 66-C and 67-A of the Information and
Technology Act were also invoked while filing the
charge-sheet.

7. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner and Respondent 2 are childhood friends
and have good/friendly relations since 18 years,
however an immature prank went out of hand and
led to filing of the present FIR on 23-9-2021. The

2

2023 SCC OnLine Del.3309

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



complainant and the present petitioner have
settled the dispute vide settlement dated 29-9-
2021. The petitioner has remained in custody for
about a week before he was bailed out on the
strength of the said settlement. The petitioner
undertakes not to repeat the act in future. The
affidavit of the complainant is also on record,
which stands verified.

8. The complainant/Respondent 2 is present
through videoconferencing and has been duly
identified by the investigating officer, who states
the matter has been settled with the petitioner
and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed
against the petitioner. The learned APP for the
State has also no objection, if this petition is
allowed.

9. Considering the above settlement
between the parties and chances of conviction of
the petitioner are bleak, there is no use to
continue with the proceedings of the present FIR
as complainant has settled all the disputes and
has received the settled amount from the
petitioners.

10. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed. Consequently, XXXXX under Section
384IPC registered at XXXXX Delhi and
the proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed, subject to payment of cost of Rs 10,000
in lawyers' welfare fund, XXXXX or association and
the receipt be handed over to the IO within one
week from today. Pending application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.”

… … …

6. This Court, in a matter relating to removal of a
court order from the internet, observed as under :

“8. The question as to whether a court
order can be removed from online platforms is an
issue which requires examination of both the right

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



to privacy of the petitioner on the one hand, and
the right to information of the public and
maintenance of transparency in judicial records on
the other hand. The said legal issues would have
to be adjudicated by this Court.

9. The right to privacy is well
recognised by the Supreme Court in the
Constitution Bench judgment in K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of
India [K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India,
(2017) 10 SCC 1]. In Zulfiqar Ahman
Khan v. Quintillion Business Media (P)
Ltd. [Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion
Businessman Media (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 8494] this Court had examined
this issue and while granting an interim
order, this Court had held as under :

‘8. In fact, it is the submission of learned
counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff's personal
and professional life has been hampered
irreparably and further damage is likely to be
caused if appropriate relief is not granted against
the republication of these two articles. The original
publisher having already agreed to pull down the
same, this Court having directed that the same
ought not to be republished, the plaintiff, thus,
has a right to ensure that the articles are not
published on multiple electronic/digital platforms
as that would create a permanent atmosphere of
suspicion and animosity towards the plaintiff and
also severely prejudice his personal and
professional life. The printouts of the articles from
www.newsdogapp.com, which have been shown to
the court, leave no doubt in the mind of the court
that these are identical to the articles published on
www.thequint.com, which have already been
pulled down.

9. Accordingly, recognising the
plaintiff's right to privacy, of which the “right
to be forgotten” and the “right to be left
alone” are inherent aspects, it is directed

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



that any republication of the content of the
originally impugned articles dated 12-10-
2018 and 31-10-2018, or any extracts/or
excerpts thereof, as also modified versions
thereof, on any print or digital/electronic
platform shall stand restrained during the
pendency of the present suit.

10. The plaintiff is permitted to
communicate this order to any print or electronic
platform including various search engines in order
to ensure that the articles or any excerpts/search
results thereof are not republished in any manner
whatsoever. The plaintiff is permitted to approach
the grievance officers of the electronic platforms
and portals to ensure immediate compliance of
this order.’

10. Recently, the Orissa High Court
in Subhranshu Rout v. State of
Odisha [Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha, 2020
SCC OnLine Ori 878] , decided on 23-11-2020,
has also examined the aspect and applicability of
the ‘right to be forgotten’ qua right to privacy, in a
detailed manner including the international law on
the subject.

11. It is the admitted position that the
petitioner was ultimately acquitted of the said
charges in the case levelled against him. Owing to
the irreparable prejudice which may be caused to
the petitioner, his social life and his career
prospects, in spite of the petitioner having
ultimately been acquitted in the said case via the
said judgment, prima facie this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner is entitled to some
interim protection, while the legal issues are
pending adjudication by this Court.

12. Accordingly, Respondents 2 and 3 are
directed to remove the said judgment dated 29-1-
2013 in Custom v. Jorawar Singh Mundy [Custom
v. Jorawar Singh Mundy, 2013 SCC OnLine Del
359] from their search results. Respondent 4

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



Indian Kanoon is directed to block the said
judgment from being accessed by using search
engines such as Google/Yahoo, etc. till the next
date of hearing. Respondent 1 to ensure
compliance of this order.”

7. In the opinion of the court, the fact that
the entire career of the petitioner, who is a young
executive, is likely to be jeopardised due to the
continued presence of the impugned articles on the
internet would weigh in favour of directing the
removal of these publications. Moreover, the court
has to draw a balance between the right to access
information, in general on the one hand and the
petitioner's well-being, mental health, career
prospects and prospects in life and family on the
other hand. The fulcrum of any society following
the rule of law would be to reform a person and
not condemn a person permanently. While bearing
these factors in mind and considering the order
extracted above, it is deemed appropriate to direct
all the publishers i.e. Respondents 3 to 10 to
remove the articles which have been collectively
attached to the petition as Annexure P-1.

8. In addition, access to the said articles shall also
be blocked by Respondent 2/Google LLC.

9. MeitY shall also issue directions for blocking of
any articles relating to the petitioner and the FIR which
has been quashed, within 48 hours. The present order
shall be communicated by Mr Rakesh Kumar learned
CGSC, to MeitY for necessary compliance.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall
provide learned counsel for the respondents all the
specific URLs of the articles of which removal is sought.
The list shall be communicated by the end of day to the
respondents.

11. The said URLs shall be removed within 48
hours and the access to the same shall be blocked by the
respondents.

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



12. Insofar as the Indian Express is concerned,
one week's time is granted to the said respondent to
remove the articles.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The High Court of Delhi permits masking of the name of
the accused in all the search engines. In the light of the
declaration of law by the Apex Court and that of the High Court
of Delhi, the petitioner becomes entitle to the relief that is
sought in the case at hand.

18. The submission advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 deserves only to be
noticed, to be rejected without hesitation. The apprehension
that granting the relief sought by the petitioner would open the
floodgates of similar claims or unlock a proverbial Pandora's
box is an argument more of expediency than of constitutional
principle. Courts do not adjudicate rights by counting the
number of those who may seek justice in the future.
They adjudicate them by testing the legitimacy of the
claim against the touchstone of the Constitution.

19. If, indeed, the recognition of such a right were to
result in many more similarly placed citizens approaching

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



constitutional Courts seeking identical relief, so be it . If the so-
called Pandora's box is opened by the enforcement of a
fundamental right, so be it . The spectre of multiplicity of
litigation can never be employed as a constitutional alibi to
deny relief to one who demonstrably establishes an invasion of
her fundamental rights. Constitutional guarantees are not
to be rationed for fear that others may invoke them.

20. The right to dignity and the right to live with
dignity are not ornamental expressions adorning Article
21 of the Constitution; they constitute its very soul. The
Constitution does not merely guarantee life—it
guarantees a life worthy of living, a life free from
unwarranted stigma, perpetual suspicion and needless
humiliation. Once a competent Court has restored the
petitioner's innocence by a judgment of acquittal that has
attained finality, every repository of judicial information is
under a corresponding obligation to ensure that such judicial
vindication is not rendered illusory by the relentless memory of
the digital world.

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



21. The contention that the relief sought should be
declined lest it encourage others similarly situated is, therefore,
an argument in terrorem —one founded upon the fear of
consequences rather than the command of constitutional
values. Such a submission cannot be permitted to eclipse,
much less extinguish, the petitioner's legitimate plea for
protection of her dignity. In an age where a few keystrokes
often substitute for human inquiry and digital search
results frequently shape public perception, the continued
visibility of an obsolete accusation inflicts a civil
consequence far graver than the criminal proceedings
themselves.

22. Therefore the petitioner's prayer for masking her
identity in the peculiar facts of the case, therefore, cannot be
sacrificed at the altar of such unfounded apprehensions.

23. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER


(i) The criminal petition is allowed .

(ii) Mandamus issues to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to
forthwith mask the name of the petitioner in

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:38819
WP No. 22456 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010498112025



the digital records pertaining to
SC.No.547/2015 or Criminal Petition
No.1628/2014 connected with Criminal
Petition Nos.1637/2014 and 1979/2014,
failing which, the petitioner is at liberty to
initiate proceedings seeking to unleash the
coercive arm of law.

Ordered accordingly.



Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE




JY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 205