Right to be Forgotten: Himachal Pradesh High Court orders masking of rape accused’s name after acquittal

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently observed that an accused who is acquitted or honourably discharged by the process of law should not be made to carry the “sword of his being accused for all his life”. .The division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja made the comment while emphasising on enforcement of right to be forgotten in such cases.“This Court in plethora of cases has come across the issues where FIRs are registered with any rhyme or reason or out of knee jerk reactions and the proceedings are ultimately quashed by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We, therefore, are of the considered view that after the accused gets blame-free by a process of law, the respondent cannot be seen to be carrying sword of his being accused for all his life,” the Court said..It added that the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone are inherent aspects of the right to privacy which has been recognised as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. “In the crime, once the accused gets acquitted/honorably discharged by a competent Court of law or this Court, and the order becomes final, the shadow of crime, if permitted to continue and substitute its place for the shadow of dignity on any citizen, it would be a travesty of the concept of life under Article 21. Every person has a right to live with dignity," the Court said. .The Court made these observations while dealing with an appeal moved by the State against acquittal of an accused in a rape case. The victim, who was more than 17 years old in 2017, had run away with the accused after he had asked her to marry him. However, it was later alleged that she had been raped by the accused . Pertinently, the victim and the accused later got married and child was also born out of the wedlock. Considering the same as well as other circumstances, the Court said the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond the reasonable doubt..It also questioned the State’s decision to file the appeal once it became known that the victim was living with the accused.“Apart from the above, the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of the prosecution and has clearly admitted that she had married the respondent and has a three years old daughter out of this wedlock. Obviously, in such circumstances, there was no occasion for the State in fact to file the present appeal as once it has come on record that the prosecutrix is living happy married life with the respondent, then, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix," the Court said.Thus, it refused to interfere with the acquittal, observing that it will be extremely harsh and totally unwarranted upon the child in case her father is labelled as a criminal only because he wanted to and did get married to the victim..The Court also delved into the right to be forgotten and said names of the victim and the accused need to be erased from the digital records.“Obviously, the names of the prosecutrix as also the appellant need to be masked/erased so that they do not appear/visible in any search engine, least the same is likely to jeopardize and cause irreparable hardship, prejudice etc., not only to the respondent and the prosecutrix, but to their little daughter in their day-to- day life, career prospects etc," the Bench stated. Accordingly, it directed masking the names of the accused as well as the victim from the digital database of Bilaspur Court as well as the High Court..Senior Additional Advocate General IN Mehta, Additional Advocate General Sharmila Patial and Additional Advocate General Navlesh Verma represented the State.[Read Judgment]