- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
XXXXXXXX v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was the second respondent in Criminal Petition No. 5685 of 2020, which concerned a criminal proceeding involving Mohsin Salam, the first petitioner in that case. The proceeding was quashed by this Court on 21 December 2020 following a mutual divorce settlement between the petitioner and Mohsin Salam. Despite the closure of the case, the petitioner’s name continued to appear as the wife of Mohsin Salam in various digital databases maintained by the High Court, Indian Kanoon, and lawyerservices.in. The petitioner sought a direction to have her name masked or removed from these digital records, particularly to protect her personal rights as she has remarried and does not want the previous association to be publicly visible. While the High Court and lawyerservices.in complied by masking or withdrawing the petitioner’s name, Indian Kanoon had not done so, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner’s name should be masked or removed from digital databases, including Indian Kanoon, following the quashing of the criminal proceeding and mutual divorce settlement?
- Whether the continued display of the petitioner’s name as the wife of Mohsin Salam in such databases infringes on the petitioner’s personal rights?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner’s name continues to appear as the wife of Mohsin Salam despite the criminal proceeding being quashed due to mutual divorce.
- This continued display affects the petitioner’s personal rights, especially since she has remarried and does not want the prior association to be visible.
- The petitioner requested the High Court and other respondents to mask or remove her name from digital records and search engines.
Respondents’ Position
- The High Court and lawyerservices.in have complied by masking or withdrawing the petitioner’s name.
- Indian Kanoon has not yet masked the petitioner’s name, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the criminal proceeding involving the petitioner was quashed following a mutual divorce, thereby terminating the legal association between the petitioner and Mohsin Salam. Recognizing the petitioner’s personal right to privacy and the impact of the continued public display of her name as the wife of Mohsin Salam, the Court reasoned that the petitioner’s name should be masked or removed from digital databases if the judgment is to remain accessible. The Court noted that while the High Court and one respondent complied with the masking request, Indian Kanoon had not done so. Given these facts and the petitioner’s personal circumstances, the Court allowed the petition and directed Indian Kanoon to mask the petitioner’s name in the relevant records.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is allowed.
The Court directed the third respondent, Indian Kanoon, to mask the petitioner’s name in the digital record of Criminal Petition No. 5685 of 2020, if the judgment is to remain in their database. The direct effect of this decision is the protection of the petitioner’s privacy by preventing her name from appearing in connection with the quashed criminal proceeding and prior marital status. No new precedent was established beyond the specific relief granted in this case.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24THDAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.22994 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIKAS M., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
EAST RANGE BANGALORE CITY,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE INDIAN KANOON
PROPRIETOR SUSHANT SINHA,
OFFICE ADDRESS AT
* Re- typed and re-placed page No.1 vide chamber order dated 07.07.2022.
1
NO.724, 1STFLOOR, 9THCROSS,
10THMAIN ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 038.
4. WWW.LAWYERSERVICES.IN
FOUNDER. PARIKSHIT A. ADVANI,
OFFICE ADDRESS AT 7E,
2NDFLOOR, OLD ORIENTAL BUILDING,
OPPOSITE HIGH COURT,
FORT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RICAB CHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO REMOVE/MASK THE NAME AND
ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE DIGITAL RECORDS
MAINTAINED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IN CRL.P.NO.5685 OF
2020 AS INDICATED IN THE RANK OF R2 IN THE ORDER DATED
21.12.2020 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND ALSO
REMOVE/MASK THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AT PARA NO.3
AND PARA NO.4 OF THE SAID ORDER, TO THE EXTENT OF THE
SAME NOT BEING VISIBLE FOR THE SEARCH ENGINE INCLUDING
IN HIGH COURT WEBSITE, GOOGLE OR OTHER SEARCH ENGINES
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, in substance, seeks name of the petitioner to be masked in the database of the respondents.
2
2. Heard Sri.Vikas.M., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Ricab Chand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. Petitioner was respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.5685/2020 and on settlement being arrived at, in the said proceeding, on account of a mutual divorce therein, this Court by order dated 21.12.2020 quashed the entire criminal proceeding against one Mohsin Salam, petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.5685/2020. Petitioner comes across her name still being figured as wife of Mohsin Salam despite closure of the proceedings by seeking mutual divorce. The name was found in the databases of this Court, Indian Kanoon and lawyerservices.in. Seeking a direction to mask the name of the petitioner, the present petition is preferred.
4. This Court has redressed the grievance of the petitioner by masking the name. The 4threspondent lawyerservices.in have withdrawn the judgment from their database. It is the Indian Kanoon that has not carried out the masking as is
3
requested. It is in that light, the petitioner has preferred the subject petition.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the 2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.5685/2020 and that having been terminated on account of divorce between one Mohsin Salaam and the petitioner herein on 21.12.2020, the name of the petitioner should be deleted or masked from display, if the judgment has to be kept in the database of Indian Kanoon, as it would affect the personal right of the petitioner, since the petitioner has remarried and does not want her name to be shown as wife of Mohsin Salam.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The 3rdrespondent/Indian Kanoon shall mask the name of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5685/2020, if the
4
same has to remain in the database of Indian Kanoon.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
5
Alert