SC rejects petition seeking to withhold order on its website

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a plea seeking to withhold an order from its website to protect the privacy of a warring couple, underscoring that all verdicts are routinely posted on the court’s website as standard practice and exceptions cannot be made arbitrarily.

A bench comprising justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta highlighted that a balance between individual rights and the principles of open justice could be struck by hiding the names of the parties in the orders of the court, adding their names were masked even while listing the matter.

Notably, the episode brings to the fore that the debate surrounding the right to be forgotten pits privacy against the principles of open justice and public access to court records.

During the hearing, the lawyer for one of the parties argued that the order should not be uploaded due to privacy concerns, as both individuals involved are practising lawyers in the Supreme Court. The court, however, held firm, stating that while names could be masked, entirely withholding an order was not an option.

“All orders are uploaded on the website. That’s a regular practice. How can we do away with the rules and the practice for one case? We can mask the names like we do in many such cases,” the bench replied.

Responding, the lawyer further contended that the Supreme Court registry records the woman as the wife of the other party and that uploading the order would make their identities known. However, the bench retorted pointedly: “But did not your marriage take place? If the registry records you as someone’s wife, how is that wrong?”

Addressing the underlying matrimonial dispute, the bench noted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It restrained both parties from posting any photographs on social media and ordered the dissolution of the marriage, expunging all prior allegations and averments recorded in previous judgments.

The development comes amid ongoing deliberations on the broader legal question of whether the “right to be forgotten”-- a subset of the fundamental right to privacy, can be extended to judicial orders, which are typically public documents.

The right to privacy was accorded fundamental status by a nine-judge Supreme Court bench in 2017 in the landmark KS Puttaswamy case. The judgment, delivered through multiple concurring opinions, recognised that an individual must have control over personal information and that privacy protects individuals from unwarranted publicity.

In subsequent years, certain high courts have upheld the right to be forgotten. The Madras high court, for instance, ordered legal databases to remove judgments revealing the identity of acquitted individuals in sensitive cases. In contrast, the Kerala and Gujarat high courts have held that judicial records should remain public.

The larger issue of whether the right to be forgotten can be applied to judicial orders is currently pending before the Supreme Court in two separate cases, tagged together. One of these cases was taken up in July 2024, when a three-judge bench led by then-Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud deliberated on this question in a matter concerning Indian Kanoon, a legal database. The case arose after the Madras high court directed Indian Kanoon to remove a judgment acquitting a man in a sexual assault case, on the grounds that his identity should not remain publicly accessible.

During the hearing on July 24 last year, the Supreme Court expressed scepticism about removing entire judgments, warning of the potential ramifications if the principle were extended too far. The bench noted that while redaction of names might be appropriate in sensitive cases, erasing judgments from the public domain could create a dangerous precedent.

Advocate Apar Gupta, appearing for Indian Kanoon at the time, highlighted conflicting judgments from various high courts, emphasising the need for clarity on the issue. The Supreme Court has since stayed the Madras high court’s directive and is expected to settle the law in the near future.