New Delhi, The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set down for hearing on September 2 appeals by legal database platform India Kanoon against a single judge order directing it to de-index and disable its "name-based search functionality" for certain judicial orders based on "right to be forgotten".
A bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar orally observed that public interest favoured "access", and asked why one should not be permitted to have access to any judicial record based on a party's name.
"There is a judgement of the high court and the Supreme Court on Harshad Mehta. Why should I not be able to search for Harshad Mehta?" the bench asked.
" without the writ petition number, case details, you will never be able to access any judgement... If the single judge says that one of the considerations which can balance is public interest, public interest is in favour of access to this... No one knows this ," the bench added.
On May 29, the single-judge bench recognised an individual's "right to be forgotten" and directed India Kanoon and Google to de-index and disable name-based searches.
De-indexing refers to the removal of a specific web page or website from a search engine's database.
{{/usCountry}}De-indexing refers to the removal of a specific web page or website from a search engine's database.
{{/usCountry}}On Wednesday, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for IKanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd, argued that India Kanoon was "not a newspaper report", but a legal website hosting judicial records that cannot be tampered with.
He said that while the record in question continues to be available on other legal platforms like SCC Online or Manupatra, it "cannot be accessed by anybody effectively" on India Kanoon due to the single judge's order.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for a party who was discharged in a case, opposed the appeal and said that contrary to the appellant's claim, a judgement remains accessible, though not through a name-based search but other details like case number.
He asserted that if the single-judge's decision is not upheld, the "stigma" attached to him would never go.
The bench stated that notice shall be deemed to have been issued and accepted in the appeals, as it is ordered, "Counsel for the parties submit that instead of going into the interim aspect ... The appeals may be set down for hearing at 2:30 pm on September 2."
In its appeal, India Kanoon has said the single-judge bench's May 29 judgement has "general and vague" directions, which are prejudicial to the right to information and the goals of open justice.
It has stated that the judgement has expanded the scope for censorship and laid down an arbitrary standard for de-indexing and disabling name-based searches, which violate the platform's right to freedom of trade, occupation, and profession under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The appeal has asserted that the single judge misread the K S Puttaswamy judgement on Right to Privacy by the Supreme Court's nine-judge bench.
It has said that in the landmark judgement, the top court discussed the concept but did not provide an unqualified right to be forgotten from judicial records.
India Kanoon said it is a free legal database that makes law accessible to the general public as it hosts public judicial records, like judgements and orders of the Supreme Court, the high courts as well as tribunals.
The platform serves a larger public interest and an individual's desire to erase his litigation history cannot become the basis to restrict other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, said the plea.
The single judge, in the judgement, ruled that search engines like Google cannot be perpetually permitted to show judicial records in name-based search for a case which is private in nature or has ended in an acquittal, discharge, quashing or settlement.
Giving relief to a group of petitioners in over 35 petitions, the single-judge bench had ordered authorities, search engine operators and India Kanoon to de-index and disable their "name-based search functionality" in respect of judgements, orders and news articles cited by the petitioners.
It, however, held that de-indexing is not appropriate in certain cases involving conviction for offences against women or children or for offences involving breach of public trust, offences by public servants and elected representatives, etc.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.