The Karnataka High Court has directed authorities to mask the name of an Iranian woman, who was acquitted in 2019 of charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, from online records. The court emphasized the ‘right to be forgotten’ in the digital age, stating that the continued visibility of an obsolete accusation inflicts a civil consequence far graver than the criminal proceedings themselves.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed registrars of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru City Civil Court, the State police, Google, and Indian Kanoon portal to mask the petitioner-woman’s name from their digital records pertaining to the case. This direction enables the Internet to ‘forget’ the individual’s association with the crime, allowing her to live a life free from the stigma of an obsolete accusation.
The petitioner was one of the four accused prosecuted in 2013-14 for indulging in a prostitution racket through websites. However, all the accused were acquitted in 2019 by the trial court on finding several serious lapses by the police, including delayed registration of First Information Report and lack of sufficient evidence. The petitioner had approached the United Nations seeking recognition as a refugee and was given refugee status and permanent residence in Sweden.
However, during her online search, she found her name linked to the crime in which she was acquitted, and prospective employers conducting routine background checks were confronted with the digital specter of criminal prosecution, effectively ‘eclipsing the judicial vindication’ she had received. The High Court said that this digital footprint caused ‘grave prejudice’ to her life.
The court stated that an acquittal is not just a procedural formality but a ‘solemn judicial declaration’ of innocence, and the law cannot permit a situation where the acquittal risks becoming a paper declaration, bereft of any meaningful consequence in the lived realities of the individual.
Dismissing concerns that granting such relief would ‘open floodgates,’ Justice Nagaprasanna stated that constitutional guarantees are not to be rationed for fear that others may invoke them.
