Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court last week ordered masking and anonymisation of the name and personal details of a 28-year-old man who was acquitted in a criminal case. It held that his continued identification with the proceedings in publicly accessible digital records was no longer justified after the acquittal attained finality.A division bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Urmila Joshi-Phalke directed the registries of Supreme Court and Bombay HC, as well as HC’s Information Technology Wing, to replace the petitioner’s name with “ABC” in specified publicly accessible orders, judgments, pleadings, citations and search results.The bench was hearing a plea by a city man, who was barely 18 when he was named accused in a criminal case in 2016. A JMFC court acquitted him on March 11, 2026, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The state govt did not challenge the acquittal.The petitioner, through counsel SM Mate, contended that he is now employed and fears that the continued online availability of records linking him to the criminal case could affect future employment opportunities, overseas travel and his family life. He sought removal of his name and personal identifiers from publicly accessible digital versions of the judicial records.The bench examined the plea in the context of the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 and the developing concept of the “Right to be Forgotten”. It noted that India does not presently have a specific statute recognising the right, but said the concept has been considered as part of informational privacy following the apex court’s landmark judgment in KS Puttaswamy versus Union of India.The judges, however, stressed that the right is not absolute and has to be balanced against justice, freedom of speech and expression and legitimate public interest.Referring to SC’s observations on privacy and the digital age, the bench noted, “Humans forget, but the internet does not forget and does not let humans forget.” It also relied on a 2026 Delhi HC judgment which examined masking of personal identifiers in publicly accessible judicial records.The judges found that the petitioner had been acquitted after a full-fledged trial, stating that the accusation against him did not warrant a “permanent stamp of criminality”.The court clarified that the relief would not destroy or erase the judicial record, directing its Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial), through Information Technology Wing, to mask the petitioner’s details in the specified HC and trial-court records and replace his name with “ABC”. It also asked the SC secretary general to anonymise the petitioner’s identity in the publicly accessible digital version of the SC order and corresponding search results.
