Court directs removal of petitioner's actual name and substitution with pseudonym on public digital records to protect informational privacy, dignity, and reputation following quashing of proceedings under IPC Sections 323, 504, 506.
In a landmark judgment delivered on September 17, 2026, the Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the "Right to be Forgotten" principle for individuals in criminal cases that have been quashed, ordering the removal and masking of the petitioner's name from the public E-Courts Services website. The judgment, delivered by Justice Alok Mahra in the case of Hemu Das v. State of Uttarakhand, marks a significant step towards balancing transparency of judicial records with the protection of informational privacy and the presumption of innocence under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioner, Hemu Das, a software professional, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking directions to redact his actual name from the E-Courts portal in connection with a criminal case registered against him under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's grievance was that despite the criminal proceedings being quashed by the High Court on June 6, 2024, his name continued to appear as an accused on the digital portal, causing potential prejudice to his career and reputation.
Justice Mahra observed that the continued public association of an individual's name with judicial records after acquittal or quashing causes disproportionate harm to the individual's informational privacy, dignity, and reputation without serving any legitimate public interest. The judgment drew heavily on the Supreme Court's recognition of the right to informational privacy as a facet of Article 21 in the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
The Court elucidated the concept of "masking" as the replacement of a party's name and personal identifiers with neutral pseudonyms like "ABC" or "XYZ" in the publicly accessible digital version of judicial records. Importantly, the judgment, including legal reasoning, findings, court details, and case number, remains intact and accessible in the court's internal records, preserving the institutional and precedential value of the judgment. Masking merely prevents the casual public from linking the judicial record to the individual's identity, thus giving full practical effect to the presumption of innocence.
Further, the Court laid down guiding parameters for granting masking relief:
1. Only names and personal identifiers are masked; the substance of the judgment remains fully accessible.
2. The un-redacted judgment is preserved in internal court records accessible to legitimate authorities.
3. Masking applies retrospectively and prospectively to all digital versions of the record.
4. Masking orders by courts oblige search engines like Google to de-index the masked judgment from name-based search results and disable search functionalities on hosting platforms.
5. Courts retain jurisdiction to review or revoke masking orders if circumstances change.
6. Applications for masking must be decided expeditiously due to ongoing harm from public availability of personal data.
The Registry/Computer Branch of the Uttarakhand High Court and the District Court of Udham Singh Nagar were directed to remove the petitioner's actual name from the E-Courts Services website and substitute it with a pseudonym, thus safeguarding the petitioner's privacy and future prospects.
This judgment sets an important precedent in Indian judicial practice by formally recognizing the right to be forgotten for individuals exonerated in criminal cases, balancing the public's right to access judicial information with the individual's fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Bottom Line:
Right to be forgotten - Criminal proceedings having already been quashed - Continued reflection of petitioner's name as accused on public e-courts portal held to cause disproportionate harm to informational privacy, dignity and reputation - Court directed masking/removal of petitioner's actual name from E-Courts website and substitution by pseudonym such as "ABC" or "XYZ".
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21, Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC; Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Rule 3(1)(d)
Hemu Das v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990645
