What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
Delhi High Court issued notices in response to a plea from a businessman seeking the removal of a court order from the Indian Kanoon website
NEW DELHI: On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court issued notices in response to a plea from a businessman seeking the removal of a court order from the Indian Kanoon website.
This order pertains to a criminal case from 2024 that has since been resolved, but its online presence is said to be damaging the businessman’s professional reputation.
ALSO READ: Nitish Kumar credits Vajpayee; rejects Lalu’s offer, stays firm with BJP
Justice Sachin Datta has called for responses from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Indian Kanoon, and Google. The court has also directed its registry to anonymize the businessman’s name in the current proceedings to protect his identity. The case will be revisited on February 4.
The controversy stems from an FIR filed against the businessman in 2024, leading to his application for anticipatory bail. Despite the case being closed by the police, the bail order continues to be accessible online, which the petitioner claims harms his credibility.
Representing the businessman, Advocate Aditya Agarwal argued that the persistent online visibility of the order infringes on his client’s right to be forgotten.
ALSO READ: Pravesh Verma urges PWD to open ‘Sheesh Mahal’ for public viewing, calls it symbol of corruption
In defence, Advocate Mamta Rani, representing Google, brought attention to the tension between privacy rights and freedom of speech.
She pointed out ongoing Supreme Court cases examining similar issues, where only certain sensitive categories like POCSO Act cases, matrimonial disputes, or sexual harassment cases are currently eligible for masking of case titles.
Rani suggested that such provisions do not extend to cases like that of the petitioner.
The Delhi High Court recognized the legal complexities involved in this matter, particularly in balancing individual privacy rights with the public’s right to access judicial information.
The court will delve deeper into these issues at the next scheduled hearing.
