A guy of Indian origin who is now settled in USA, once visits India and unfortunately gets into big trouble.
When Jorawar Singh came to India in 2009, one of his acquaintances gave him a bag and asked to deliver it to his grandmother. The friend told Jorawar Sing that bag contains her clothes and shoes. Jorawar Singh was caught in customs checking, because drugs were found in that bag.
What was it then, the case was booked in section 21(c), 23, 28, 29 of NDPS.
Jorawar Singh’s lawyer was able to prove in the trial court that the bag in which the drugs were found was not his and he did not even know what was in that bag. The court did not consider Jorawar Singh guilty and acquitted him on 30 April 2011.
Customs Department appealed in Delhi HC but from there also Jorawar Singh was considered innocent and was acquitted on 29 January 2013.
In fact, Jorawar Singh was lucky in the sense that his NDPS case was settled in just four years and he was proved innocent. But he did not know that the story of his misfortune was going to start after that.
What happened to Jorawar Singh that he had to take refuge in the court again?
Did the law understand his plight?
Do others have the same problems as Jorawar Singh had?
Is there any solution to this problem in law?
In today’s discussion, we will know the answers to all these questions.
Forgetting the entire incident of these four years like a nightmare, Jorawar Singh returns to US with renewed enthusiasm.
His previous job has gone well.
Now he wants to make a fresh start. Applies for the job afresh.
After crossing a few levels of the selection process, he was rejected. It repeated for second time, ithird time and so on. When this started happening again and again, Jorawar Singh wanted to find out what was the reason.
After talking to an HR executive, it was found that the legal proceedings that were done in India are updated on many portals and can be found in Google search. It is a general practice in the US that the profile is thoroughly checked before the job offer so that there is no trouble later. Those with legal complication find it difficult to get a job.
Jorawar Singh narrated his complete story by emailing all the portals. He requested them that just because that case is uploaded on your portal, “I am getting punished even though I am innocent”,. Please remove it. Jorawar Singh also wrote to Google that particular links should not be shown in the search.
Some portals have removed it. But many big portals like Indian Kanoon, Casemine did not remove it. There was no hearing in Google either.
Finally to get justice, Jorawar Singh has to file a suit in the Delhi HC. He demanded that Google and other portals be asked to remove this content from the search results.
On 27 April 2021, the court of Justice Pratibha M Singh admitted that even after his acquittal from the charges, Jorawar Singh has to suffer. The information about his case available on the Internet is affecting his social life and career prospects. In an interim order, Google and Indian Kanoon have been asked to remove the content of that judgment from the search results. This relief is being given to him under ‘Right to Be Forgotten’.
What is the ‘right to be forgotten’?
In Right to Be Forgotten, a person has the right to have his personal information publicly available on the Internet, in the search database or on any website, to be removed. For this it should be proved that either the information is wrong or is no longer relevant.
The concept of Right to Be Forgotten comes from the GDPR of the EU. There is no such law in India which clearly says anything on this, but it has been introduced in the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019.
This bill has not yet become a law.
What the courts have said
Our PDP Bill may not have been made law yet, but Right to Be Forgotten. have been certainly recognized by our courts, taking reference of international jurisprudence on it.
In August 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice Puttuswamy vs Union of India gave a landmark judgment on privacy. Justice Sanjay Krishna Kaul wrote in his judgement that,
“Right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and to be able to control his/her own life would also encompass his right to control his existence on the Internet”.
A few months before this, Bhanushankar Dave had filed a petition in Gujarat HC demanding that the judgement of the kidnapping and murder case on him should be removed from the internet. Gujarat HC itself had found bhanushankar dave innocent in this case. But the Gujarat HC refused to grant him such relief as there is no law in which the publication of the judgement can be held wrong.
Whereas at the same time the Karnataka HC gave an observation in a decision recognizing the Right to Be Forgotten,
“In sensitive cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the modesty and reputation of the person concerned”, “In line with the trend in the Western countries”.
In May 2019, when the Me Too campaign was going on, the Delhi HC had passed a similar order. Zulfiqar Ahman Khan, had petitioned that until the final verdict of the case on him, such information should not be put on the internet. The court had restricted some portals and observed that,
“The right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone are “inherent aspects” of the right to privacy.”
In October 2020, Orissa HC said in a case that the information that has come in the public domain is like toothpaste, which once removed from the tube is difficult to put back. In the case, a rape accused had put sexually explicit videos of the victim on the internet with the intention of blackmailing her.
When can the right be exercised?
When the Supreme Court had recognized the Right to Privacy, it had also given this explanation along with it.
- “It does not mean that all aspects of earlier existence are to be obliterated, as some may have a social ramification”
- “If we were to recognize a similar right, it would only mean that an individual who is no longer desirous of his personal data to be processed or stored, should be able to remove it from the system where the personal data/information is no longer necessary, relevant, or is incorrect and serves no legitimate interest.”
- The apex court asserted that this right cannot be exercised where the information or data is necessary for:
- Exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;
- Compliance with legal obligations;
- The performance of a task carried out in public interest, or public health;
- Archiving purposes in the public interest;
- Scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes; or
- The establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims.
Recognizing the Right to Privacy by Apex Court has been considered a very good decision. Everyone has welcomed it. But it remains to be seen how relief will be available in Jorawar Singh and many genuine cases like him.
Delhi HC has said that,
“Where a court order is demanded to be taken down, the court will be required to examine the right to privacy of the petitioner on one hand, and the right to information of the public and maintenance of transparency in judicial records on the other hand.”
Let’s hope that Jorawar Singh gets justice.
By the way, what is your opinion about Right to Privacy and Right to be forgotten.
Thank You
