AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court has sought assistance from the state government and the court’s registry after a woman petitioned for erasure of all her cases from the court’s portals and the internet by claiming her right to be forgotten.
The woman’s advocate informed the court that she was involved in a matrimonial dispute and there were multiple applications filed in different courts in Ahmedabad, including criminal cases.
The legal battle with her husband and in-laws lasted nearly five years, and finally a family court in the city granted her a divorce decree. Since the courts have a system of uploading orders on their websites, the woman’s name and her case details appear on the internet.
The woman cited a Supreme Court order that directed removal of all case related materials pertaining to an NRI who claimed his right to be forgotten after his acquittal in a criminal case. In her petition in the HC, the woman has sought directions against the court registry and Google. Justice V D Nanavati inquired whether the petitioner had requested any of the authorities to do the needful.
“I know this is your right and you are entitled to it. But what efforts have you taken so far?” he asked.
The lawyer expressed helplessness in approaching the court authorities because the woman’s litigations were in different courts. He also submitted that according to the policy followed by the internet search engine, it will not remove the data unless there is a court order.
The judge instructed the lawyer to ask the registrar general not to upload orders on the internet in the litigations involving the petitioner. To this, the lawyer again expressed his inability, saying, “My difficulty is that I cannot write to a registrar of the court and request him not to publish the orders.”
Looking at the petitioner’s handicap, Justice Nanavati said, “If you are not ready to undertake anything, the court will have to take up the issue.”
The court further said that in absence of any cause of action, the court’s order would be an order in rem. Acknowledging that the woman’s assertion was valid, the judge said, “In fact, it is your right, and the court is with you on this.”
Regarding the procedural aspect, the judge ordered that the copies of the petition be given to the state government and HC’s registrar general so that they can assist the court. Further hearing of the matter is scheduled for October 9.
The woman’s advocate informed the court that she was involved in a matrimonial dispute and there were multiple applications filed in different courts in Ahmedabad, including criminal cases.
The legal battle with her husband and in-laws lasted nearly five years, and finally a family court in the city granted her a divorce decree. Since the courts have a system of uploading orders on their websites, the woman’s name and her case details appear on the internet.
The woman cited a Supreme Court order that directed removal of all case related materials pertaining to an NRI who claimed his right to be forgotten after his acquittal in a criminal case. In her petition in the HC, the woman has sought directions against the court registry and Google. Justice V D Nanavati inquired whether the petitioner had requested any of the authorities to do the needful.
“I know this is your right and you are entitled to it. But what efforts have you taken so far?” he asked.
The lawyer expressed helplessness in approaching the court authorities because the woman’s litigations were in different courts. He also submitted that according to the policy followed by the internet search engine, it will not remove the data unless there is a court order.
The judge instructed the lawyer to ask the registrar general not to upload orders on the internet in the litigations involving the petitioner. To this, the lawyer again expressed his inability, saying, “My difficulty is that I cannot write to a registrar of the court and request him not to publish the orders.”
Looking at the petitioner’s handicap, Justice Nanavati said, “If you are not ready to undertake anything, the court will have to take up the issue.”
The court further said that in absence of any cause of action, the court’s order would be an order in rem. Acknowledging that the woman’s assertion was valid, the judge said, “In fact, it is your right, and the court is with you on this.”
Regarding the procedural aspect, the judge ordered that the copies of the petition be given to the state government and HC’s registrar general so that they can assist the court. Further hearing of the matter is scheduled for October 9.
About The Author
