Right to Privacy — Masking of Names in Court Records · 17 September 2026

Uttarakhand High Court Orders E-Courts Records to Mask the Name of a Person Whose Criminal Case Was Quashed, and Sets Out Right-to-Be-Forgotten Directions

High Court of Uttarakhand · 2026:UHC:8409; WPCRL/1438/2026

A software professional was named as an accused under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC in a case at Udham Singh Nagar. After a compounding application, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings on 6 June 2024, but his name still appeared as an accused on the E-Courts Services website. He said this would prejudice his career and asked for his name to be deleted, replaced or masked, relying on decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts on the right to be forgotten. The Registry said it agreed in principle but had no specific directions or guidelines on masking.

Justice Alok Mahra explained that masking means replacing a party's name and identifying details, such as address and identity details, with a neutral reference like ABC or XYZ in the publicly accessible digital version of a record, while the unredacted version is kept in the court's internal records. The Court held that masking operates both for existing public versions and for future uploads, that a masking order is an order of a competent court for the purposes of Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Intermediary Rules, 2021, obliging search engines such as Google to de-index the judgment from name-based searches and hosts such as Indian Kanoon to disable name-based search for it, and that the court keeps power to review or revoke the direction if later circumstances take the case outside the categories where relief is available. It directed the High Court Registry and the Udham Singh Nagar District Court to replace his name on E-Courts with a neutral reference. The petitioner's name is deliberately not reproduced here.

More about this case →