The Madras High Court has recently underscored the importance of courts preserving data as a court of record while also highlighting the need to maintain a delicate balance between data collection and safeguarding an individual's personal data.

Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice R. Vijayakumar's bench noted that while courts are expected to possess data, the decision to make such data publicly available rests with the discretion of the court and must be made consciously and cautiously. The bench further remarked that courts cannot be compelled to disclose any information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The court was hearing a petition filed by an individual challenging a single judge's ruling that dismissed his plea to remove his name and other particulars from a judgment acquitting him in a sexual assault case. The petitioner contended that the right to be forgotten and privacy are intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution.

He further argued that the publication of judgments containing personal details perpetuates stereotypical notions in the minds of readers, even after the legal process has expunged any allegations made in the original judgments.

In contrast, the respondents stressed the importance of public access to judgments. Additionally, the registry challenged the petition, arguing that without specific rules in place, a mandamus of this nature could not be granted.

The court mentioned that the writ court, in rejecting the man's plea, had highlighted the absence of legislation on this matter. However, the bench emphasized that the discretion to redact names rested with the court and that every effort should be made to improve the system. Furthermore, the bench noted that the imperfections and weaknesses of the criminal justice system should not impede the delivery of justice whenever necessary.

The court further remarked that the open justice system has effectively brought justice to the citizens' doorstep. Nevertheless, it emphasized that privacy is an inherent aspect of the right to life and dignity, and therefore, the courts must navigate a delicate balance between the principles of open justice and the privacy rights of the litigant.

The court noted that as institutions dedicated to serving justice, the courts could not close their eyes to privacy concerns and a litigant's right to leave behind his past.

The court also highlighted that maintaining the sanctity of the original court record does not diminish if it is altered to safeguard the privacy of individuals mentioned in the judgment.

In the current scenario, the court observed that the man's acquittal was thorough, absolute, and he had not merely benefited from doubt but had successfully disproved the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no public interest in preserving aspects of his life as public records that are now irrelevant.

Therefore, the court directed Ikanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd to remove the copy of the judgment available on their website. Additionally, the court instructed the Madras High Court registry to redact the individual's name and other identifying details from the judgment and ensure that only the redacted version was made available for publication and uploading.