The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has mandated the masking and anonymization of personal information belonging to a 28-year-old man recently acquitted in a criminal case. The court determined that his identification with the case in publicly accessible digital records was no longer warranted following the finalization of his acquittal. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to protecting the privacy of individuals who have been cleared of charges, ensuring that their past does not continue to affect their future.
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 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 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”.
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. 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.
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.