Previous 1 / 21 Next

AFR HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK BLAPL No.4592 OF 2020 (In the matter of an application under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul … Petitioner … Opposite Party Versus State of Odisha For petitioner : For the Opp. Party: Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Behera and S. Bahadur, Advocates Shri Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Date of Hearing: 20.10.2020 Date of judgment: 23.11.2020 1. The present application is preferred under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in connection with G.R. Case No.171 of 2020 arising out of Rasol P.S. Case No.62 of 2020, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Hindol registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 292, 465, 469, 509 of IPC read with Sections 66, 66(C), 67, 67(A) of the I.T. Act, 2000.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Rout v. State of Odisha

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (linked Case Law): India

Decision Date: Nov 23, 2020

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Privacy
Right to be Forgotten

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Court Name: High Court of Orissa

Case Number: BLAPL No. 4592 / 2020

Case Summary: The High Court of Orissa, India reaffirmed the need for the legislative recognition of the right to be forgotten while refusing to grant bail to a petitioner in a rape case. The accused was charged with raping a woman and uploading a video of the incident on Facebook to harass the victim, and he then applied for bail in the High Court. The Court refused to grant bail due to the heinousness of the crime, but also commented that the right to be forgotten is an integral part of the right to privacy and that there must be a mechanism through which a victim can protect her privacy by having the content deleted from servers of intermediaries. The Court held that in cases where a victim’s right to privacy has been gravely violated, the victim or the prosecution may approach a Court to seek appropriate orders and have the infringing content removed from public platforms – irrespective of the ongoing criminal process.

Case Significance: The decision reiterates the need for legislative recognition of the right to be forgotten in India, which – even three years after the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right – remains an abstract right without a Personal Data Protection law. This decision expands freedom of expression in the sense that the right to privacy is considered integral for the effective utilization of the right to expression. However, if drafted or interpreted overbroadly, the legislative right to be forgotten may lead to the removal of information that may otherwise have been available to the public or be in the larger public interest, and so much depends on how the legislature defines this right when it enacts a Personal Data Protection law.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction. As a decision of the High Court of Orissa, the decision is binding on authorities and all lower courts in the state of Orissa.

Decision (including concurring or dissenting opinions) establishes influential or persuasive precedent outside its jurisdiction. Although the decision is only binding in Orissa, it is nonetheless significant on a pan-India level as it contributes to the growing judicial consensus about the need for the right to be forgotten, after two similar judgments from the Delhi High Court and the High Court of Karnataka.

Related Caselaw (self)

Related Law

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 3, 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment
English
Download View