Case Quashed, But Name Still Online: Uttarakhand HC Orders Masking of e-Courts Record

The Uttarakhand High Court has directed that a software professional’s name be masked from the publicly accessible e-Courts record after the criminal proceedings against him were quashed in 2024.

Justice Alok Mahra held that continued public association of an individual’s name with a criminal case, after the proceedings have come to an end, can raise concerns relating to informational privacy, dignity and reputation where there is no continuing legitimate public interest.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the man after he discovered that his name continued to appear on the e-Courts Services website in connection with criminal proceedings initiated in Udham Singh Nagar district.

According to the petitioner, an FIR was registered against him in 2023. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the competent court took cognisance of the matter. The proceedings were subsequently quashed by the High Court on June 6, 2024, after a compounding application was filed.

Despite the criminal proceedings having been brought to an end, the petitioner’s name remained searchable on the e-Courts portal.

The High Court said that such continued digital association could have consequences beyond the existence of the judicial record itself, particularly because a person’s name can become the primary search key through which the record is accessed.

What did the High Court order?

The Court directed the High Court Registry, Computer Branch and the concerned district court to replace the petitioner’s actual name in the publicly accessible digital record with a neutral reference such as “ABC” or “XYZ”.

However, the Court made it clear that this would not amount to deletion of the judgment or the judicial record.

The case number, court details, date, reasoning, findings and legal conclusions would continue to remain publicly accessible. The complete and unredacted record would also be preserved within the court’s records.

The Court explained that masking essentially removes a person’s name as the easily searchable identifier while retaining the substance of the judicial decision.

This means that courts, lawyers, parties, authorities and others seeking the judgment for a legitimate purpose would still be able to access the underlying judicial record.

Masking is different from de-indexing

The High Court also distinguished masking from de-indexing.

De-indexing generally involves directing a search engine or private platform to prevent particular information from appearing through name-based searches. Masking, on the other hand, concerns the publicly accessible version of the judicial record maintained by the court itself.

The Court said that only personal identifiers should be masked and that the substance of judicial decisions must remain available.

It further indicated that such masking may apply not only to records already available online but also to future digitisation or uploading of the relevant records.

Right to privacy and judicial records

The judgment linked the issue to informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and the proportionality principles associated with the right to be forgotten.

The Court observed that where criminal proceedings have already been quashed, continued association of an individual’s name with that record may require reconsideration if there is no legitimate public interest supporting the continued searchable association.

In the present case, since the proceedings against the petitioner had already been quashed, the Court allowed his plea and ordered the masking of his name from the relevant e-Courts digital record.

The ruling therefore draws a distinction between preserving judicial transparency and keeping an individual’s personal identity permanently searchable in connection with proceedings that have already ended.