Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds decision to stop uploading court orders in sensitive cases

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging High Court's administrative orders against uploading orders and judgments in sensitive cases on the court websites including the e-court platform [Rohit Mehta vs Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others].

The PIL moved by advocate Rohit Mehta had also challenged Section 73 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 366(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which impose a blanket prohibition on publication of anything relating to cases involving sexual offences, without a court's permission.

In its judgment dated September 20, the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal said the right of a victim to remain anonymous is directly relatable to the very existence of the person and dignity of the victim.

"If identity of the victim is disclosed, especially in crimes against women/juveniles, then harm to the person and dignity of the victim/juvenile that may ensure would outweigh the injury caused to a stranger, whose right to know the identity of the victim is denied," the Court said.

It further opined that right to life and personal liberty is connected directly to the very existence of a human being and all other fundamental rights are dwarfed by the right under Article 21.

"The life contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution is not mere animal existence but a life of dignity, which the nature has provided to every human being. All other fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution are dwarfed by the right under Article 21," it added while dismissing the PIL.

The cases in which orders and judgments are not being uploaded for public downloading relate to sexual offences, matrimonial disputes and those involving juveniles.

The PIL also challenged the High Court Computer Committee’s order directing the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to create a mechanism to hide the names of parties in case search, cause list and other search options on the High Court website when it comes to cases relating to Juvenile Justice Act, Official Secrets Act, intelligence agencies, domestic violence, sexual offences against women and children.

In order to enable the lawyers appearing in such cases to download such judgments, the High Court had enabled a special section on its website but the same was not accessible to general public.

Mehta had also challenged Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 33 of the Special Marriage Act to the extent that they prohibit publishing of judgments in matrimonial disputes, even with party details hidden.

Considering the prayers made in the PIL, the Court said it has to resolve the controversy between two conflicting fundamental rights - one of the victims to remain in anonymity and the other of the petitioner's right to know the details of the victims.

While ruling in favour of the right to privacy, the Court said the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subservient to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

"If there is no life, then the question of right to information does not arise. Thus, right to life takes precedence over right to information," it said.

Therefore, the Court said the right to information as invoked by the petitioner can be subject to various restrictions.

It further opined that disclosure of identity and information about a victim is against morality and decency, since any such disclosure prevents the victim from enjoying a life of dignity.

"The victims in crimes relating to women and juveniles belong to a special class of citizens who are the most vulnerable stakeholder in the entire transaction of crime and prosecution, and deserve special treatment by making available certain protections and immunities in shape of imposing prohibition for disclosure of identity of the victim, to prevent the victim from suffering any harm to body, mind or reputation," the Court said.

The Bench further said the victims in crimes relating to women/juveniles are entitled to special protection as provided by different laws and the administrative instructions issued by the High Court are only manifestations of those protections.

"The provision under Section 33 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and all administrative instructions issued by the High Court, as challenged in this petition, are meant to protect the reputation, dignity and person of the victim of sexual offences/juveniles. As such, these protections available to victims cannot be subjugated to the right to information of the petitioner. The protections available to such class of victims/juveniles stand at a much higher pedestal than the right of petitioner to information," the Court said.

In conclusion, the Court said the right of the victim to remain anonymous cannot be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of right to information of the petitioner.

"From the conspectuses of the above discussion, no case of interference is made out," it said while dismissing the PIL.

Advocates Krishan Kanha and Kshitiz Goel represented the petitioner.

Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji with advocates Shobit Phutela, Zaheen Kaur and Nandita Verma represented the respondents.

[Read Judgment]