The Delhi court has issued a decisive order reaffirming that acquitted individuals deserve their dignity back.
The Principal District and Sessions Court at Patiala House, presided over by Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna, has directed media organizations, search engines, and legal databases to remove or de-index online material alleging a man’s involvement in the Moser Baer money laundering case, a matter in which he has already been cleared of all charges.
Background and Plaintiff’s Argument
The plaintiff, once arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during the investigation of the Moser Baer case, was later formally discharged of the allegations.
Despite this exoneration, articles and reports naming him as an accused continued to circulate online, easily accessible through search engines and legal reference platforms.
According to his submissions, these outdated records were inflicting ongoing social and professional harm.
Employers, associates, and members of the public encountering those reports were left with an unchanging digital portrait of him as a criminal, despite the legal system having absolved him.
Court’s Reasoning: Digital Permanence vs. Human Dignity
Judge Chandna acknowledged a growing legal challenge in the digital age: the permanence of online information.
Once a person is cleared, the Judge noted, the continued availability of those accusations serves no purpose but to undermine their reputation.
In firm words, the Court observed that society does not benefit from maintaining limitless digital access to allegations that have lost their legal foundation.
To leave them online, it reasoned, would inflict unnecessary and disproportionate harm on the plaintiff.
The Court drew a clear boundary: a person proven innocent cannot be forced to live under the constant shadow of their past accusations, especially when the judicial process has absolved them.
Interim Directions
The Court issued an interim injunction ordering removal and blocking of the URLs cited in the plaint. The directive applies to:
- Major media outlets (including ANI, Indian Express, The Times Group, Hindustan Times Media Ltd., NDTV, The Hindu Group, and The Print)
- Search engine giant Google
- Legal platform India Kanoon
- Unidentified parties listed as “John Doe”
All were instructed to delete or disable access to the specified links until final adjudication of the main suit.
Freedom of Press vs. Privacy
Several respondents argued that the original news reporting was protected under freedom of speech and expression. Others questioned the maintainability of the suit on grounds of limitation.
The Court rejected both arguments.
In its ruling, Judge Chandna highlighted that the right to report does not equate to the right to permanently anchor a person’s name to accusations that the criminal justice system has invalidated.
The plaintiff was represented by advocate Akshay Amritanshu, who successfully demonstrated the ongoing reputational harm caused by outdated digital publications.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
