Final acquittal restores dignity: Karnataka High Court orders acquitted woman’s name masked from digital case records

The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 3 in Crime No. 29/2014 registered by Hebbal Police Station for offences under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 370, 370A(2) and 292 of the IPC.

The case was committed to the Sessions Court and tried as S.C. No. 547/2015. By judgment dated 28 March 2019, the petitioner and the other accused were acquitted, and the acquittal attained finality.

The petitioner subsequently obtained refugee status and permanent residence in Sweden.

Despite the final acquittal, her name continued to appear in online court records and legal databases, including Google and Indian Kanoon, in a manner suggesting that she remained connected with the criminal prosecution.

She asserted that these digital references adversely affected her employment prospects, reputation and ability to live with dignity.

She therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS and sought masking of her name from the digital records relating to S.C. No. 547/2015 and the connected criminal proceedings.

Whether a person whose acquittal in a criminal case has attained finality is entitled to have her name masked from digital court records and searchable legal databases where continued online identification as an accused adversely affects her dignity, reputation and professional prospects.

Whether the right to privacy, informational privacy and the right to be forgotten under Article 21 require balancing the public’s right of access to judicial information against the petitioner’s right to dignity and rehabilitation after final acquittal.

Whether the apprehension that granting such relief would open the floodgates of similar claims justified refusal of the petitioner’s relief.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS to protect the petitioner’s fundamental rights.

It relied on Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, particularly the principles that informational privacy includes an individual’s ability to control personal data and aspects of their existence on the internet, and that the right to be forgotten is not absolute but must be balanced against freedom of expression, public information, legal obligations and legitimate public interests.

The Court also relied on SJ v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3309, and the principles recognised in Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Business Media (P) Ltd. and Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha, which support removal, blocking or de-indexing of online material where its continued publication causes disproportionate prejudice despite acquittal or quashing of criminal proceedings.

A final acquittal restores the presumption of innocence and requires that judicial vindication not be defeated by persistent and misleading digital records.

The Court found that the petitioner’s acquittal was unequivocal and had become final, with the prosecution having failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, digital records continued to associate her with the criminal case as an accused, thereby creating an ongoing civil and professional disability despite the termination of the prosecution.

Applying the informational-privacy and right-to-be-forgotten principles in Puttaswamy, the Court held that the continued accessibility of obsolete criminal allegations could not be permitted to render the acquittal merely a “paper declaration”.

It distinguished masking from total obliteration of judicial history: the relief was directed at protecting the petitioner’s identity and dignity in the digital sphere while recognising that the right to be forgotten is subject to legitimate public-interest limitations.

The Court rejected the respondents’ floodgates objection, holding that possible future claims could not justify denying constitutionally warranted relief in the petitioner’s individual circumstances.

The Court issued a mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to forthwith mask the petitioner’s name in the digital records relating to S.C. No. 547/2015 and Criminal Petition No. 1628/2014 connected with Criminal Petition Nos. 1637/2014 and 1979/2014.

The Court held that, after a final acquittal, continued online identification of the petitioner as an accused infringed her rights to dignity, reputation and informational privacy under Article 21.

It further directed that, in the event of non-compliance, the petitioner would be at liberty to initiate appropriate coercive proceedings.