Skip to main content

JORAWAR SINGH MUNDY VS. UNION OF INDIA (2021)

 


                     JORAWAR SINGH MUNDY VS. UNION OF INDIA (2021)


INTRODUCTION

This is the case where the right to be forgotten is discussed. In this case the main issue was that is the right to be forgotten a fundamental right or not, is it comes under Article 21 of the constitution. Right to forgotten means, it is the right to have publicly available personal information removed for all sources.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, an American resident, had visited India in 2009. Nonetheless, a body of evidence was recorded against him under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. After several years, a preliminary court acquitted him in its decision dated April 30, 2011. In a decision dated January 29, 2013, a solitary adjudicator of the Delhi High Court insisted his acquittal on appeal by the state. Subsequent to getting back to the United States, the petitioner concentrated on regulation and understood that he was in a tough spot in light of the fact that the High Court's choice was accessible on the web. Subtleties of his case could be found through a google search by any potential business who needed to run a historical verification on him prior to employing. In this way, he sent notification to Google India Private Ltd., Google LLC, Indian Kanoon, and vLex.in. However, just vLex.in pulled out the previously mentioned decision from its entrance. At the point when the judgment was not removed from different stages, he recorded a writ appeal under the steady gaze of the Delhi High Court, mentioning that the judgment be erased from all respondent destinations, regarding the Petitioner's Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

ISSUES IN THE CASE

1) Whether a court order can be removed from online platforms?

2) Does the concept of the Right to be forgotten exist in India?

JUDGEMENT

The Delhi High court said that on one hand we have petitioners right to privacy and the other hand public’s Right to information and preservation of transparency in judicial records. The court put together its choice with respect to the Supreme Court's choice in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Association of India (2017), which perceived the right to security. It additionally depended on its own request in Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Businessman Media Pvt. Ltd. and Ors [2021]. The court had passed a break request for this situation to preclude republication of the upbraided article.

Further, the Orissa High Court had likewise perceived the option to be forgotten in Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha, [2020]. The court had analysed the viewpoints and immaterialness of the option to be forgotten qua the right to protection, remembering the worldwide regulation for the subject.

Subsequently, the court allowed break assurance to the petitioner and requested substances facilitating the judgment to eliminate it. Indian Kanoon was requested to keep the previously mentioned judgment from being seen via web indexes like Google, Yahoo, and others until the following hearing date.

CONCLUSION

The Right to be forgotten falls under the purview of an individual’s right to privacy, which is governed by the Personal Data Protection Bill that is yet to be passed by parliament. But the stance on whether this right is fundamental in India is still not clear but if the pending Data Protection Bill is cleared it can become a right. But till not the right to be Forgotten is not a fundamental right or it does not comes under Article 21 of the constitution. This the first case in which a court ordered the removal of access to its complete final judgement from certain spaces. 


By,

Asha Sebastian.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Concept of constitutionalism

  Concept of constitutionalism Who Started Constitutionalism? John Locke - The English Bill of Rights is a foundational constitutional document that helped inspire the American Bill of Rights. Political theorist  John Locke  played a huge role in cementing the philosophy of constitutionalism.  Constitution is a written law which describes the structure of Government, the rules according to which the Govt. must work and the boundaries within which the Govt. must work. Constitutionalism   can be defined as the doctrine that governs the legitimacy of government action, and it implies something far more important than the idea of legality that requires official conduct to be in accordance with pre-fixed legal rules. Constitution constitution is the document that contains the basic and fundamental law of the nation, setting out the organization of the government and the principles of the society. Basic norm (or law) of the state; System of integration and organi...
Post a Comment
Read more