RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN AND RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE

Right to be forgotten is the right of every individual not to be injured out of another’s acts of constant recalling of past deeds.

Now the above said doctrine has been used to uphold the reputation of persons by removing the private information about him from internet sites and social Medias.

Shakespeare made it clear in Othello: Act II, Scene iii that a good name, or reputation, is valuable for its owner. Stealing the reputation of one, does not make another rich. But he, who loses reputation, suffers damage.

In 2019, through the personal date protection Bill the right to privacy has been a legally accepted recognizable right. But the bill has not been passed yet.

After the decision on ‘Right to Privacy’ rendered by the Supreme Court of India in J. KS Puttaswami v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, various High Courts upheld the rights arising from ‘right to be forgotten’, based on the dogma on ‘Right to Privacy’.

The following are the land-mark decisions on the doctrine of the ‘right to be forgotten’ (after the verdict in Puttaswami).

1.  ulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Business Media(P)Ltd 2019 SCC OnLine Del. 8494.

2.    Sri Vasunathan v. The Registrar General (Karnataka HC,2020)

3.    Subhranshu Rout Gugul  v. State of Odisha, 2020 SCC OnLIne Ori. 878

4.    Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India & Ors 2021 SCC OnLine De. 2306 - The petitioner, an American citizen of Indian origin, travelled in India during 2009.  A criminal case under the NDPS Act, 1985 was lodged against him.  He was acquitted from all the charges.  The appeal filed by the Customs was also dismissed.  After his return to US, the petitioner had to face disadvantages due to the availability of his case on a Google search.  Hence employment to his expectations was denied to him.  The petitioner issued notice to Google India Pvt. Ltd., Google LLC, Indian Canon, etc.  Even after notice the respondents in the case did not remove the judgment.  Hence the petitioner filed the petition to recognize his right to privacy under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court, by an interim order, directed Google India Pvt. Ltd. and Google LLC to remove the judgment from ‘search results’ sought for by the petitioner; and directed Indian Canon to block the said judgment from being accessed by using search engines such as Google/yahoo etc. 

5.    X  v. YouTube (Delhi HC, 2021)

The plaintiff in that case was a well-known actor in TV and Film world of India.  She participated in the creation of Video made mention of in the suit (suit video).  The project was later on dropped.  But the plaintiff found that the producer of the suit video uploaded it in YouTube channel and website.  On the request of the plaintiff the producer removed the videos.  Without plaintiff’s consent the defendants in the suit uploaded the suit videos in various websites.

The plaintiff applied for anonymity and filed the suit against the publication, streaming, or other broadcasting, on the ground that the suit videos infringed her privacy, negatively affected her reputation and it prejudiced her career.  

The contesting defendant (Google) argued that they were unaware of the agreement as to the videos; the plaintiff being consented  filming the videos  defendants were not under an obligation to prevent the publication of the videos; the plaintiff had no statutory protection to enforce the ‘right to be forgotten’ , the plaintiff had not required the authorized representative who complied to the Intermediary as provided under Rule 3(2)(b) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, S. 67 & 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 excluded matters published in the interest of Science, Literature, Art, etc.

Finding the suit to be maintainable, the Court held that the suit videos were of the kind that comes in Rule 3(2)(b) of the I.T. Rules, 2021.  The Court pointed out:

• Even if plaintiff allowed to video graph voluntarily, the suit videos were not agreed to be published or transmitted by the defendants. 
• She did not license for any of the URLS, Websites or Search engines to publish of transmit the same to YouTube. 
• The defendants published or circulated the videos ‘for obvious monitory and other prurient benefits’. 
• Even if the producer would have claimed protection on the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant had ‘no such consent’. 
• ‘Right to be forgotten’ and the ‘right to be left alone’ are ‘inherent aspects’ of the ‘right to privacy’. 

K.S. Puttaswami  v. Union of India and the ‘Right to be Let Alone’ the celebrated decision on ‘right to privacy’, K.S. Puttaswamy, (2017) 10 SCC 1 , Supreme Court held that the ‘right to be let alone‘ is a part of ‘essential nature of privacy‘ of an individual.

Privacy postulates the reservation of a private space for the individual, described as the right to be let alone. The concept is founded on the autonomy of the individual. The ability of an individual to make choices lies at the core of the human personality. The notion of privacy enables the individual to assert and control the human element which is inseparable from the personality of the individual.

The autonomy of the individual is associated over matters which can be kept private. These are concerns over which there is a legitimate expectation of privacy. The body and the mind are inseparable elements of the human personality. The integrity of the body and the sanctity of the mind can exist on the foundation that each individual possesses an inalienable ability and right to preserve a private space in which the human personality can develop. Without the ability to make choices, the inviolability of the personality would be in doubt. Recognizing a zone of privacy is but an acknowledgment that each individual must be entitled to chart and pursue the course of development of personality.

Hence privacy is a postulate of human dignity itself. Thoughts and behavioral patterns which are intimate to an individual are entitled to a zone of privacy where one is free of social expectations. In that zone of privacy, an individual is not judged by others. Privacy enables each individual to take crucial decisions which find expression in the human personality.

It enables individuals to preserve their beliefs, thoughts, expressions, ideas, ideologies, preferences and choices against societal demands of homogeneity. Privacy is an intrinsic recognition of heterogeneity, of the right of the individual to be different and to stand against the tide of conformity in creating a zone of solitude. Privacy protects the individual from the searching glare of publicity in matters which are personal to his or her life.

Privacy attaches to the person and not to the place where it is associated. Privacy constitutes the foundation of all liberty because it is in privacy that the individual can decide how liberty is best exercised. Individual dignity and privacy are inextricably linked in a pattern woven out of a thread of diversity into the fabric of a plural culture.

 

 

.