Author: Anushka Kalluri, Damodaram Sanjivaya National Law University
Abstract-
Privacy at crossroads with transparency creates an interesting intersection underneath a legal premise in India. On one end of the spectrum is the public’s right to access information wherein openness of the courts forms the basis for trust in the system, and on the other is the individual’s right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as a fundamental right. When sensitive personal information from court records is under public access, this interesting tussle between the two principles becomes visible, especially in this era of digitalization when access to information is readily available. This article investigates the legal framework concerning privacy and transparency as well as risks presented against privacy within open judicial processes. This article thus seeks to develop an understanding of the conditions surrounding such issues to put forward modalities through which these rights may be balanced against each other.
Right to be forgotten-
The Individual’s Right to Privacy is guaranteed as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India wherein the scope of Article 21 of the Indian constitution was widened to emanate the same. It is affirmed that privacy is an indispensable part of life and liberty; hence proportional safeguards would be required when this right finds itself in conflict with any other right. The right to be forgotten has evolved as part of this right of an individual. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act acknowledges the “right to erasure” but creates ambiguity concerning the application of this statute to court records and publicly available data pertaining to the courts. The Information Technology Rules mandate that intermediaries are to take down or prevent access to any content within 24 hours of receiving a complaint as to a breach of privacy from any individual. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case discussed the “right to be let alone” but it is noteworthy to mention it did not make it absolute. In this way, the current position of the Right to be forgotten is in a legal grey area due to different interpretations, legislations, and judgments over the years.
Open Courts and Record Accessibility-
Open courts are meant to create free access to court proceedings providing transparency and building the trust of the public in the independence and impartiality of courts. In Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India, the apex court ruled in favor of open courts to increase judicial transparency in cases of national and constitutional importance. In Chief Election Commissioner of India v. MR Vijayabhaskar & Ors. the SC was presented with the question of whether the ‘right to know’ extends to judicial orders alone or can even be applied to judicial proceedings. The court held that as freedom of speech and expression covers freedom of the press thus including freedom to report judicial proceedings. Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act deals with information of personal nature; provided that the access does not pertain to any public activity or interest causing abuse and unjustified intrusion into individual privacy the information must be taken down, unless it is considered to have a higher public interest in justifying the disclosure of such information against non-disclosure.
Balancing Privacy and Transparency-
There are several challenges in balancing the rights of individuals and transparency in the accessibility of court records with respect to the associated risks regarding breaches of privacy. Court records contain sensitive data such as names, addresses, financial details, medical histories etc making individuals exposed and rendering them vulnerable. Public disclosure of such records stigmatize ands bring about social ostracism which is detrimental. The Supreme Court, in Kiran Bedi & Ors v. Committee of Inquiry held the right to reputation as an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty which is subjected to infringement in such scenarios. The severity of the problem is amplified since there are no criteria regarding access to these records online. Unrestricted and inefficient borderless access to the Internet readily increases incidences of invasion of privacy. The burden of balancing transparency and privacy both adds a huge administrative weight to the already overloaded judicial system.
The right to be forgotten is also an extension of the right to privacy, which necessitates the government and the judiciary to act so as to ensure that the citizen’s data is not left open to excessive public access, particularly at points where the relevant public interest in its continued exposure has ceased being justifiable. Such absence of clear, enforceable mechanisms regarding the right to be forgotten allows the erosion of an individual’s autonomy over his or her personal information. There is also a question of whether the deletion of this information is done only in the primary source of publication and whether can anything ever be completely wiped off the vast web of the internet.
Global Approaches-
The ‘right to erasure’ under European privacy law, allows an individual to delete the digital traces that are public and breach their privacy. In Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) highlighted the right to be erased is mandated of the company to remove all inadequate data upon request. The European Union has embedded the right to be forgotten in Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) it gives importance to the concept of informational self-determination and the right to control personal data. The Online Eraser Law of California provides for minors to request the removal of content or information that they have posted on a website, online service, or mobile application. It also prohibits online service companies from marketing to minors products or services that are restricted to purchase by adults. In addition, this right has been extended to adults under the DELETE Act 2023, to remove personal information collected from them by data brokers.
Conclusion
Legislative remedies to solve the dual problem of privacy and transparency by creating comprehensive structures potentially requiring anonymization and redaction of personal information from publication are imperative. Filtering sensitive content through AI-enabled platforms alongside designing different forums for the public depending on their interest, and the nature of the case they want to access. There is a need for judicial oversight with clear standards for privacy should be applied, and privacy impact assessments should be done in high-profile cases to guard against the risks of untoward dissemination. The culmination of these measures would thus bear a strong indication of the extent to which the need for transparency and the individual need for privacy can be met in balance.
FAQS
Q1. What is the main subject of discussion in the article?
The article explores the concept of contradiction between the individual’s right to privacy as enshrined in the fundamental rights and the public’s right to access judicial records.
Q2. How is ‘the right to privacy’?
The term “right to privacy” is the right of a person against unauthorized public exposure of personal information related to them. A fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India it has been affirmed in landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India by the SC.
Q3. What is the ‘right to be forgotten’?
The right to be forgotten allows a person to ask for their personal data to be removed from the public domain when it no longer serves the larger public interest. Its application is vague in India due to inconsistent judicial interpretation.
Q4. What challenges exist in striking a balance between court record transparency and privacy?
Stigma, reputational risk and an increasing administrative burden on the courts are few that contribute to the challenge of balance between privacy and openness in court records.
Q5. What are the downsides of unrestricted access to court records?
Unrestricted access of court records can lead to privacy violations, social stigma, reputational harm especially in cases where people are involved in sensitive and personal legal issues.
