0

Right to be Forgotten: An Indian Perspective

Introduction  

Everyone would face insults and humiliations in life, But nobody wants to remember those. We all try to forget it and motivate ourselves to move forward, while the world never forgets it irrespective of our growth and achievement. Right to be Forgotten means the right to get one’s information removed from internet or any public platforms. This right was first established by European Union in 2014 and enforced in 2018 through the General Data Protection Regulation which provides the right to individuals to delete or erase their personal information. Till date there is no law in India to deal with the right to be forgotten specifically. 

Right to be Forgotten in India  

An attempt was made in India to bring the ‘right to be forgotten’. Ravi shankar prasad, ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, introduced The Personal Data Protection Bill to the Lok Sabha on 11th december 2019. The purpose of the Personal Data Protection Bill is to protect an individual’s privacy relating to their personal data. Under the Personal Data Protection Bill, Chapter 5 provides about Right of Data Principal and clause 20 mentions the Right to be Forgotten;  

Clause 20 (l) states that: “Data principal (the person to whom the data is related) shall have the right to restrict or prevent the continuing disclosure of his personal data by data fiduciary”. 
The users can delink, delete, or correct an individual’s personal information under this right but it is yet to be passed in the parliament. 

The right to be forgotten was first raised in India in the case of Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2015) before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner was accused of criminal conspiracy, murder, and kidnapping. After he was acquitted by the Court, he requested that the respondent must be barred from publishing the non-reportable judgement on the internet, as it could be damaging to the petitioner’s personal and professional life- leading to defamation. However, the court did not recognize the existence of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in India.  

Supreme court in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union of India, held Right to Privacy as a fundamental right as it will be included in the Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The aim of Article 21 is that No person shall be deprived on his life or personal liberty expect according to a procedure established by law. Court observed 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.” 

In the case of Jorawar Singh Mundy vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 3918/ 2020), Single Judge bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that, on the one hand, there is petitioners’ right to privacy and on the other hand, the public’s right to information & the preservation of transparency in judicial records. The court prioritizing the petitioner’s right to privacy, ordered the respondents to delete access to the judgement from their websites.  

In Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. M/S Quintillion Business Media Pvt. Ltd. And others, High Court of Delhi recognized the Right to be Forgotten and the right to be left alone as the integral part of an individual’s existence.  

There are certain challenges associated with the implementation of Right to be Forgotten. It would be a disadvantage for the journalists in providing information and news. This right clearly benefits the individual claiming it, while on the other side it hinders the right of freedom of expression of others who have expressed their opinion through various modes of publication. Thus, Right to be forgotten is a complex right. It has to decide between a person’s Privacy and others freedom of speech and expression. 

Conclusion  

The right to be forgotten is a subset of the right to privacy, which is a basic right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, whether the right to be forgotten is a basic right is ambiguous. The “right to be forgotten” being widely significant in present days is a developing right in India. Each one make mistakes remarking their character and everyone deserve the right to be forgotten of that remark once they are exonerated.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri 

 

References: 

  • https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7112-right-to-be-forgotten-in-india.html 
  • https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/myblogpost/is-the-right-to-be-forgotten-a-fundamental-right-52529/ 
  • 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 2019, 
  • https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf  
0

The Fundamental Right to Life Includes the ‘Right to Identity,’ So Changing Your Last Name to Avoid Caste Discrimination Is Legal, Says the Delhi High Court

Title: SADANAND AND ANR. v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS.
Decided on: 19th May, 2023

W.P.(C) 10561/2018

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

Introduction

The High Court of Delhi has ruled that a person may legally alter his or her surname in order to avoid being associated with a caste “that could pose a cause of prejudice” to that person, citing Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as its authority. The adopted caste/surname would not be eligible for any reservations or other privileges due to the name change, the court said.

Article 21 of India’s constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, which includes the right to one’s own identity. There is no doubt that the Right to Life encompasses the Right to Live with Dignity, which includes freedom from casteism and other forms of oppression. Thus, Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled on May 19 that a person has the right to alter his or her surname if doing so will prevent him or her from being associated with a cast that might lead to bias.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) had refused to alter the surname of the applicants’ father on their 10th and 12th grade board certificates, and the applicants’ two brothers had filed a petition in court disputing this decision. The CBSE Certificates they received after completing Grades 10 and 12 listed their father’s name as “Lakshman Mochi.” They said that their father, who endured daily caste discrimination, changed his last name from “Mochi” to “Nayak” and placed a notice in the press to that effect.

Courts Analysis and Decision

The court was informed that his name had been officially changed from “Lakshman Mochi” to “Lakshman Nayak” by publishing in the Gazette of India. However, the CBSE’s lawyer argued that the boys’ surname change would also result in a caste change that may be exploited. It was also argued that the boys’ request to change their father’s name was outside the scope of the required paperwork for the school. Giving the boys relief, the court said that CBSE’s refusal to make the necessary adjustment to their certificates was wholly illogical. Those who file petitions have every right to an identity that offers them an honourable and acceptable identity in society, it should be stressed. The petitioners are undoubtedly entitled to a change of identity that offers them legitimacy in the social structure if they have experienced social bias as a result of their surname and have incurred any disadvantage as a result, the court said. It was noticed that the father had previously changed his last name by publishing a notice in the Gazette, and the new last name was correctly represented in a few official papers published by government organisations.

 Therefore, there is no rationale for not permitting identical adjustments to the petitioner brothers’ 10th and 12th certificates to reflect their father’s new name. However, it was made clear that for students to benefit from any reservations or other benefits available to the altered caste or surname, the change in the surname on their CBSE certificates must only apply to their father’s name and not their caste.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Anushka Satwani

0

Caste discrimination is highly condemnable and common burial ground for people of every community and caste should be done as right to dignity encompasses beyond life and is upheld within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court passed a judgment on 29th October, 2021 in which it stated that Common Cremation and Burial grounds should be promoted and there shouldn’t be any caste segregation and any violation shall be penalized. This was observed in the case of B. Kalaiselvi & Anr.v. The District Collector & Others (W.P No. 9229 of 2021 & W.M.P.No. 9767 of 2021) and the case was presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Kalaiselvi and Mala Rajaram, who were aggrieved by the usage of a water body close to their houses to bury the remains of people from the Arunthathiyar group, filed a writ petition. They requested the court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the first respondent to designate a permanent location for the burial of Arunthathiyar Community members’ remains and to forbid them from doing so on the Odai community’s ground. 

The petitioners claimed that the dead bodies of Arunthathiyar community from Madur Village are buried in the land classified as ‘Odai Puramboke’ that bounds their land and is in contravention to the Rule 7 of Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of burial and burning grounds) Rules, 1999. This law prohibits burning a corpse or its burial within 90 meters of a dwelling place.

Further the question of “whether the right to dignity in human life is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and subsists during the span of one’s life or takes within its sweep, the right to a decent burial or cremation after death as well?”

JUDGEMENT:

The hon’ble court disposing off the writ petition observed every person irrespective of their community or religion deserves a burial/cremation and right to life encompasses beyond death and any discrimination thereof is violative of Article 14, 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution. 

Justice Mahadevan quoted that:

“If the water that we drink does not ask about our faith, caste and religion; if the air that we breathe do not ask about our faith, caste and religion; and if the land where we all live do not ask about our faith, caste and religion; if the cosmos do not ask about our faith, caste and religion, then who are we to ask about others faith, caste and religion. Therefore, let the dead rest in peace.” thus reiterating that no discrimination shall be done on the basis of caste or community.

Further, the Court also stated that wards and constituencies that support the idea of community burial sites in text and spirit may be given incentives, whether monetary or not. The government might also take the initiative to integrate the principles of religious and communal tolerance, as well as aspects of diversity, in the curricula for schools,to advocate awareness of social discrimination and racial prejudice. Lastly, The court has also emphasized how strongly condemnable the encroachment on ‘Puramboke’ lands is. Therefore, the court noted, it would be appropriate if the respondents could set aside a sufficient piece of land as a communal burial place for everyone in Madur village, regardless of caste, creed, or religion.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY ADITI PRIYADARSHI

Click here to view judgment