A man has appealed to the Bombay High Court to have his name removed from online court orders to safeguard his privacy and protect his future marriage prospects. He argues that the public availability of these orders could adversely impact his personal life, particularly his chances of finding a spouse.

It was contended that the online availability of court orders from a rent dispute, accessible through Google search, negatively impacts his marriage prospects and infringes upon his right to privacy.

Advocate Mayank Bagla, representing the petitioner, argued before the bench on Tuesday that, as a young individual, the presence of such information online not only jeopardizes his marriage prospects but also undermines his credibility.

The division bench, consisting of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla, is scheduled to consider the matter in two weeks.

According to the praecipe filed by advocate Prerak Choudhary, the incorrect identification of the petitioner’s mother as his wife in the court order has caused substantial personal issues. This error results in online searches showing the petitioner as a married man, which is adversely affecting and potentially delaying his marriage prospects.

The petitioner referenced the landmark Supreme Court judgment in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, which affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution encompasses the right to privacy. The petitioner argued that court orders should not be accessible via search engines unless explicitly designated as reportable by the court. The dispute in question originated from a leave and license agreement and was resolved in favor of the petitioner.

Despite the favorable outcome, the petitioner contends that the ongoing online presence of these orders, particularly those with typographical errors, infringes upon his right to be forgotten.

"It is against the petitioner's right to privacy that judicial proceedings which are not marked reportable by the court are shown on Google search, causing undue damage to the petitioner's reputation in the eyes of the public at large," he submitted on Tuesday.

He urged the Court to urgently address this issue to prevent further damage to his reputation and personal relationships.