Balancing 'right to be forgotten' with public interest in court records.
The article explores the conflict between the 'right to be forgotten' (informational privacy) and open justice, particularly concerning digital court records. While the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), a Delhi High Court order highlighted the persistence of digital information. The core issue isn't discoverability but incompleteness, as records often fail to reflect subsequent decisions like acquittal. The article argues that judicial records, as official state acts, must be wholly public, accurately updated to reflect all major actions, and presented with proper context by platforms. This approach protects fundamental rights, ensures digital accuracy, and addresses the root cause of the problem.
Key Points
- The article addresses the tension between the 'right to be forgotten' and the principle of open justice regarding digital court records.
- The Supreme Court recognized the right to informational privacy in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) case.
- The primary problem is the incompleteness of digital records, which often don't reflect subsequent judicial decisions like acquittals.
- Judicial records should be wholly public, accurately updated, and presented with proper context by all platforms.
- This approach protects fundamental rights, ensures digital accuracy, and resolves the issue of incomplete public records.
Exam Facts
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) case recognized the right to informational privacy.
- A Delhi High Court order on May 29 concerned the 'right to be forgotten'.
- The Indian Kanoon matter (2024) is a related case on digital records.
- The concept of 'right to be forgotten' originated in Europe.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.