The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging administrative orders that restrict the online publication of judgments in sensitive cases. The PIL, filed by advocate Rohit Mehta (CWP-PIL-160-2024), sought to overturn several administrative directives that limited the public’s access to court orders and judgments involving cases related to women, juveniles, and other sensitive matters.
A division bench consisting of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal delivered the judgment, underscoring the need to safeguard the privacy and dignity of vulnerable individuals, such as victims of sexual crimes and juveniles, over the right to public information.
The Core Legal Issue
At the heart of the case was the conflict between two fundamental rights: the right to privacy, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, and the right to information, which is linked to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The petitioner argued that the administrative orders violated the public’s right to information by withholding judgments and orders from public access on the e-Courts website. These restrictions applied particularly to cases involving women, juveniles, and sensitive offences such as domestic violence, sexual crimes, and matters involving intelligence agencies.
Rohit Mehta contended that the public had a right to access all court judgments and daily orders as part of the transparency afforded by the right to information. The petition specifically challenged orders dated November 26, 2015, and January 23, 2023, issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which instructed that names of parties involved in sensitive cases be concealed, and judgments not be uploaded online.
Court’s Decision
In its ruling, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the right to privacy of victims in sensitive cases outweighs the petitioner’s demand for unrestricted access to information. Referring to past rulings from the Supreme Court, the bench emphasized the need for a careful balance between competing fundamental rights, particularly in cases where the dignity and privacy of victims are at risk.
“The right to privacy emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty and prevents its deprivation except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The right of a victim to remain incognito is directly relatable to the very existence of the person and dignity of the victim,” the court observed.
The Court also referred to the importance of protecting the identity of victims, especially in cases of sexual offenses and crimes against juveniles, noting that revealing their identities could cause severe harm to their dignity and well-being.
“If the identity of the victim is disclosed, especially in crimes against women and juveniles, then harm to the person and dignity of the victim would outweigh the injury caused to a stranger whose right to know the identity of the victim is denied,” the bench further added.
In concluding the judgment, the Court affirmed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 takes precedence over the right to information under Article 19(1)(a). The administrative orders, the Court said, were a necessary safeguard to protect vulnerable individuals from additional trauma and harm.
The PIL was dismissed without costs, reinforcing the High Court’s stance that the privacy and dignity of victims in sensitive cases must be preserved, even at the expense of limiting public access to court records.
