Indian Kanoon’s 9 arguments in petition against the Delhi HC’s right to be forgotten order
Indian Kanoon has filed a petition challenging the Delhi High Court's order to de-index judgments and restrict name-based search functionality. The petition argues that the court has misread the Puttaswamy privacy judgment and created a 'right to be forgotten' principle.
Intelligence analysis by Llama
Indian Kanoon has challenged the Delhi High Court's order to de-index judgments and restrict name-based search functionality, arguing that the court has misread the Puttaswamy privacy judgment and created a 'right to be forgotten' principle.
Indian Kanoon is challenging a court order that says people's names should be removed from online court records. They argue that the court made a mistake by saying this is a 'right to be forgotten' principle, which isn't actually in the law.
Analysis
Puttaswamy Judgement Never Created a 'Right to be Forgotten' Principle; Delhi HC 'Misconstrued' It
Indian Kanoon argues that the Delhi High Court has misread the 2017 Puttaswamy privacy judgment, which recognized privacy as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. The petition claims that the court's discussion of a 'right to be forgotten' was only a passing observation by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, not an unqualified right to be forgotten from historical or judicial records.
The Judgment Goes Beyond What Article 19's Free Speech Restrictions Go and Courts Can't Use Privacy for New Restrictions
Indian Kanoon says courts cannot use 'privacy' as a disguise to create fresh, unlisted grounds for restricting speech. The vague and broad undefined terms can lead to arbitrary censorship of public court records. The judgment says information can be delisted if it is 'no longer relevant' or serves 'no legitimate public purpose.' Indian Kanoon argues these terms are undefined and subjective.
The Existence of Evidence-Based Harms Should Have Been Weighed Rather Than Assumed Harms
The petition argued that Delhi HC's order for global de-indexing was passed without determining if the real harms really existed and asserted its judgement on the assumed harm. 'The particular harm identified is the continued availability of the anticipatory bail order, which records the dismissal of bail by the Sessions Court before the settlement of the case,' the petition states.
Key points
- Indian Kanoon has filed a petition challenging the Delhi High Court's order to de-index judgments and restrict name-based search functionality.
- The petition argues that the court has misread the Puttaswamy privacy judgment and created a 'right to be forgotten' principle.
- The judgment says information can be delisted if it is 'no longer relevant' or serves 'no legitimate public purpose.'
- Indian Kanoon argues these terms are undefined and subjective.
If the court reverses its decision, it could set a precedent for other cases and help clarify the balance between individual rights and the public's right to know.
If the court upholds the decision, it could lead to arbitrary censorship of public court records and undermine the principle of open justice.
