New Delhi, Jul 14 Legal database platform India Kanoon on Tuesday approached the Delhi High Court challenging an order that recognised an individual's "right to be forgotten" and directed it to de-index and disable its "name-based search functionality" with respect to certain judicial orders.
Counsel appearing for IKanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd submitted before a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia that it was being led by a senior counsel and requested that the appeals against the single judge's decision be taken up on July 21.
"List on July 21," the bench ordered.
Lawyers are abstaining from work on Tuesday in view of the Delhi High Court's full court favouring the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction or financial limit of district courts here from Rs 2 crore to Rs 10 crore.
In its appeal, India Kanoon 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 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 violates the platform's right to freedom of trade, occupation and profession under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution.
De-indexing refers to the removal of a specific web page or website from a search engine's database.
The appeal asserted that the single judge misread the K S Puttaswamy judgement on 'right to privacy' by the Supreme Court's nine-judge bench.
It 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, the plea said.
On May 29, the single judge recognised an individual's "right to be forgotten" to rule 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 ordered authorities, search engine operators and legal database platform 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, elected representatives, etc.
The petitioner before the single judge invoked their "right to be forgotten" to de-index judicial records from name-based search results and to mask their personal identifiers from publicly accessible digital versions of those records.
The single judge said while transparency is integral to judicial independence and accountability, the continued association of an individual's name with a judicial record online causes disproportionate harm to their informational privacy, dignity and reputation, which is not justified by any legitimate public interest.
The judgement also stated that while the concept of 'open justice' requires that judicial records be maintained and remain accessible to those with a legitimate purpose, it does not require that a private individual's name be used as a "permanent and unlimited retrieval key, through a commercial search engine" by any internet user to instantly access his engagement with legal processes.
Despite any de-indexing, the court records continue to remain accessible by case number, citation or other purposeful search, it added.
Meanwhile, lawyers here were abstaining from work to oppose the proposed change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district courts. Currently, the high court hears civil and commercial matters valued above Rs 2 crore, but with the proposed change, district courts will be able to hear cases valued up to Rs 10 crore.
The Delhi High Court Bar Association has opposed the move, citing its impact on the lawyers' practice, livelihood and professional interests.
