HC upholds forcibly married woman's right to be forgotten online

In the digital age, a profile picture on Facebook or a display photograph on WhatsApp is much more than a person’s identity. With search engines giving details about any person in any corner of the world, people who are conscious of their image offline are ensuring their online representation, too, is unblemished.

In a first-of-its-kind ruling, the High Court of Karnataka has allowed a person’s name to be deleted from its online records, including the digital order copy. Sowmya (name changed) was kidnapped and forcibly married. There was a marriage certificate, too. Later, she lodged a complaint with the police and approached the court urging it to restrain her “husband” — who she said had kidnapped her with the help of two others — from claiming any marital rights over her on the basis of the marriage certificate.

The alleged kidnappers also approached the court seeking quashing of the proceedings against them. Sowmya and her so-called husband agreed to  make a compromise. The suspect annulled the marriage and the certificate while Sowmya withdrew the complaint. The case was settled. But Sowmya still had apprehension about her name appearing in the high court order.

She married another person and approached the high court through her father, urging it to direct that her name be removed from its digital records in line with her “right to be forgotten”.

She feared the court order mentioning her name can be easily found online, affecting her relationship with her present husband and tarnishing her reputation in society. The judge accepted her request and directed the high court’s registry to mask her name from the digital court records.

In a similar order, the court accepted the request of another woman to remove or mask her name in its digital orders as that had caused her “embarrassment and hardship”.

Advocate Amar Correa said it was a good sign that the high court was entertaining such requests as there was no legislation — expect IPC Section 228A (disclosure of identity of the victim of offences) and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution — which could protect the privacy of a person. “I am looking for an opportunity to remove the names of persons who are victims of sexual assault and minors, both in conflict with the law as well as those who need care and protection. The digital deletion also helps curb misuse of such records,” he added.

According to another lawyer, if a person holding a high position in a reputable organisation is involved in an ugly divorce, the court order would mention all details of the case. In order to maintain privacy, such requests are being entertained. There have also been instances of requests being made to media houses to remove negative articles about a person that can otherwise be found using Google and Yahoo search engines, he added.