GOWRI SHANKAR V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2021)

Prachi Barot

Renaissance University Indore

Editor : Harsh Kashyap 

INTRODUCTION 

The escalation of digital platforms has radically changed how personal data, details and information is accessed, recorded or shared. This has increased easy accessibility and that too which remains available for a long period of time after they are accurate, precise and relevant results of online information trails. For addressing these issues, Indian courts frequently address requests for removal or limitation of personal data from the internet and its sources. A significant case within India’s legal system in 2021 regarding “Right to be Forgotten” ( RTBF ) is the 2021 case of Gowri Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu. 

In the case of Gowri Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu, an individual who was involved asked for a previous judgement of criminal court to take down an acquittal from online search results. In spite of being released from the criminal charges on the grounds of not being found guilty, the online accessible verdict caused personal and professional harm. This case considered some questions :- Can an individual emphasize that the ruling by court available online to be deleted or only restricted and limited access to be allowed? Does the presence of personal information online violate the ‘ Right to Privacy’ of a person? How should judges consider the foundational value of maintaining legal openness as to the proceeding against the right to privacy? 

This case analysis scrutinizes the legal issue,  arguments, judicial reasoning and implication of decisions. 

BACKGROUND AND FACTS 

The petitioner Gawri Shankar had been charged for a criminal matter but was not found guilty and ultimately was acquitted. Despite being granted clearance the judgement was available and accessible through online searches and legal databases. The petitioner argued that due to this persistent online visibility of this judgement has compromised his reputation, privacy and employment opportunities, as the prospective employers and other individuals repeatedly came across the judgement online even though he was discharged from the legal charges.  

The petitioner prayed for :-  

1.     To remove or conceal his name within the published judgement of the court.

2.     To prevent and restrict the search engines from displaying his name whenever searched.

3.     To formally recognize “Right to be Forgotten” as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India under Article 21.

This petition, placed before the High Court of Madras, placed the court in a difficult situation of balancing one’s privacy concerns and the public right to access official legal information. 

LEGAL ISSUES 

The following legal issues were raised before the court :-  

1.     Whether the petitioner is granted with “Right to be Forgotten” under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2.     Can a court alter, modify or edit any decision or judgement after they are being pronounced and can the court order concealment of identity after passing and publishing of judgement ?

3.     How to balance and reconcile the core principles of transparent judicial proceedings, freedom of public access to information and open justice with Right to be Forgotten ?

4.     Whether the ease of searching online and the lasting of digital information cause material damage to personal privacy such that court intervention is required? 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER 

1.     Privacy as a fundamental right 

The right to privacy is a Constitutionally protected right. The petitioner argued that the continued availability of information and legal database with ease of searchability, he has faced significant harm in his private life infringing his personal dignity which are crucial elements of privacy, 

2.     Ongoing Prejudice Despite Acquittal  

Despite being acquitted from the charges on the grounds of not found guilty, a mere connection and association with the criminal case has resulted in continuous bias as the judgement is frequently searched and is easily accessible online bringing past events back to light serving as an unending punishment and penalty. 

3.     Balancing of Interests

The petitioner stated that the personal harm caused to him was disproportionate in terms of valid public interest in keeping the judgement readily available online without any difficulty. 

4.     Relative and Comparable Jurisprudence

Comparisons were drawn with the European Union’s recognition of the Right to be Forgotten in the case of Google Spain vs. AEPD. The case established the right to request removal of some outdated and irrelevant personal information from online search engines.  

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT / STATE

1.     Significance of Open  

The State argued that all the legal decisions are part of the public record. Alteration and Modification of this information will impair the judicial transparency thereby demeaning the integrity of the judicial system. 

2.     Right to Information  

The public has a constitutional right to information of judicial decisions. Removing names from a given judgement obstructs legal research. 

3.     Technical Constraints  

Once a judgement is delivered it is being published across multiple platforms and removing them from all the sites and platforms is technically very difficult. 

4.     Scope of Right to be Forgotten in India  

Before the case, there was no such right formally recognised in the Indian Law. Courts should avoid extending the right without a proper legislative framework. 

JUDICIAL REASONING  

The High Court of Madras adopted a very prudent and forward thinking approach. The court didn’t delete the original judgement in total, but acknowledged that ‘Right to be Forgotten’ is a vital part of the right to privacy. 

Key principles of the ruling are as follows :-  

1.     Recognising of Right to be Forgotten :-  

Following Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors case, individuals possess a right to informational privacy.  The right grants protection of privacy and protection of data from undue influence. It is noted that permanent online availability of information and data can cause disproportional harm to individuals involved. 

2.     Balancing Privacy with Open Justice :-  

The court asserted the importance of the right to privacy in the Puttaswamy case. Individuals possess a right to privacy of information. The court also stated the importance of open justice for transparency. However, this principle is not absolute as digital availability of such events can cause significant harm to individuals who have not been found guilty. 

3.     Anonymyzation :-  

Rather than deleting or completely removing information or data, they found a way out by anonymization. This approach safeguards the integrity of the judicial judgements while balancing an individual’s right to privacy. 

4.     Technological Constraint :-  

The court observed that removing or deleting information or data from across all the platforms is practically impossible therefore the court observed directing state - operated portals to anonymize identities and judgements in suitable cases. 

5.     Legislative Framework :-  

Initially the court highlighted the vitality of the statutory recognition of a comprehensive policy on Right to be forgotten, expecting an essential guidance from the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.  

DECISION  

The court did not order outrighteously to delete or remove completely the information. Rather it granted relief by allowing the anonymization of the petitioner’s name from the official records and future displays on government managed legal portals.  

Key Rulings :-  

1.     The court held that the Right to be forgotten is an inherent part of Article 21 - Right to Privacy. 

2.     The court granted relief by anonymization of names of the individuals who have been acquitted in suitable cases.

3.     The open court ruling prevents the complete removal of judicial judgements.  

IMPLICATIONS

1.     Strengthening the Policy :- 

The case highlighted that permanent online records of information and data can cause continuous harm, and by admitting this fact the court reinforced the judicial duty to protect individuals with this ongoing harm. 

2.     Emerging Framework :-  

Since India lacks a formal statute on the Right to be forgotten, the judicial system in this case and the case of Z v. The State of West Bengal (Calcutta HC )  recognized the growing judicial acceptance of this principle. 

3.     Judicial Transparency 

The decision of anonymization gives a balanced approach to justice as it allows judicial transparency while protecting the personal identities of individuals. This has become a standard practice by the court in sensitive cases involving minore, rape victims, matrimonial issues etc.  

4.     Legislative Action  

The court explicitly recognised the requirement for a formal statutory mechanism to provide clarity and defining :-  

a.      The criteria for applying the right to be forgotten. 

b.     Who is eligible for the application of this principle. 

c.      The process of anonymization. 

d.     The roles and responsibilities of search engines and digital platforms. 

The final legal position awaits the definitive ruling from the Supreme Court of India,  

CONCLUSION 

The Gowri Shankar v. The state of Tamil Nadu is a landmark case in the development of constitutional rights related to privacy in India. The Madras High Court provided a crucial and significant recognition of the Right to be Forgotten principle.  The court carefully struck the balance between the judicial transparency and privacy of individuals by granting the anonymization of the name of individuals from the records rather than complete deletion of their information and data. 

This judgement also helped in developing a subtle legal framework that recognizes the significance of maintaining judicial records while simultaneously addressing the potential person digital harm. As India awaits the definitive ruling from the apex court of India, this case will still be the foundation of this principle, offering guidance on balancing the right to privacy with public interest. 

REFERENCES 

1.     Gowri Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu

2.     Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1, https://main.sci.gov.in 

3.     Google Spain SL v. AEPD, Case C-131/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, https://curia.europa.eu 

4.     Aparna Bhat, Madras High Court Recognizes Right to Be Forgotten in Acquittal Case, Bar & Bench (year), https://www.barandbench.com 

5.     LiveLaw Article (Anonymization & Digital Privacy)https://www.livelaw.in

6.     Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India), https://www.meity.gov.in