X v. Union of India

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The petitioner herein faced trial for an offence under the POCSO Act, which ultimately ended in an acquittal. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the disclosure of his name in the judgment uploaded on the official website of the High Court. He has approached this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to withdraw the uploaded judgment and re-load the same after redacting his name, so that his identity is not disclosed.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, an English daily, submitted that the judgment was reported in their physical daily and e-Page4 of 6 paper exactly as hosted on the official High Court website. He further contended that insofar as the request for redacting the names of other litigants is concerned, the petitioner ought to have impleaded the respective parties.

¶3The Registrar General of the High Court of Madras, in her counter affidavit, has stated as below: "10. I submit that the Judgment delivered as such has to be hosted in the website. The Registry does not have any power or jurisdiction to redact or make changes in the Judgment delivered. Even with reference to redaction of names and or other personally identifiable information on issues of privacy will only be the prerogative of the Hon'ble Court that delivered the Judgment. Without moving the Court, the petitioner cannot make a representation to the Registry and thereafter maintain this Writ Petition for a Mandamus. Thus, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable."

¶4This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements in the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, is of the view that to preserve the privacy of the petitioner herein, the Registry of the High Court shall withdraw the judgment uploaded on the website. The Registry is directed to reload the judgment after redacting the name and identifying details of the petitioner. Page5 of 6

¶5Insofar as the names of the other parties and litigants are concerned, it is open to them to approach the competent forum to seek similar relief if they so desire. The petitioner cannot seek relief on behalf of third parties.

¶6With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (Dr.G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 29-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpl To

1.The Secretary to the Government of India, Union of India, Ministry of Information and Technology,

2.The Registrar General Madras High Court, Chennai-600 104

3.The Secretary General Supreme Court of India, New India-110 001 WPoNo.o2709oofo2026 DR.G.JAYACHANDRANoJ. and N.MALAoJ. rpl WritoPetitionoNo.o50755oofo2025 and W.M.P.No.o56811oofo2025 29-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA Writ Petition No. 50755 of 2025 and W.M.P.No. 56811 of 2025 X ..Petitioner Vs 1. Union of India Rep.by The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Technology, 2. The Registrar General Madras High Court, Chennai-600 104 3. The Secretary General Supreme Court of India, New India-110 001 4. Google India Pvt Ltd No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower E, Old Madras Road, 4th and 5th Floors, Bangalore-560 16 5. The Hindu Kasturi Buildings, 859 and 860 Anna Salai, Chennai, Tamilnadu-600 002. Page2 of 6 6. Mercury Lawyer C/o.Eastern Book Company, 34, Lalbagh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226 001 7. Latest Laws.Com 703-704 Indraprakash Building, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, 8. The Indian Kannon No.724, 1st Floor, 9th Cross, 10th Main Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560 038 9. Case Mine 2102-2103 Express Trade Tower 2, Sector 132, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201 301 10.Supreme Today AI 3a, Bq Market Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110 088 11.eCourts India removal request @ ecourtsindia.com 12.John Doe Other Unknown and /or New Online Resources ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 4 to 12 to block /delete the URL links that relate to the case shown herein and also shown in the attached Google search results or any details relating to petitioner or anything related to the said criminal allegation referred therein till the disposal of the writ petition, directing respondents 2 and 3 to redact petitioners names (and any other personally identifiable information PII) including name of opposite parties) in past orders of the respective Hon'ble Courts and reupload fresh redacted copies on the officials website /e-courts website, direct Page3 of 6 respondent No.1 to frame appropriate and comprehensive statutory guideline or a legal frame work for the effective implementation of the 'Right to be Forgotten' to cure the constitutional vacuum that currently forces citizens to seek fundamental redressal from this Honble court. For Petitioner: Mr.Samir S.Shah For M/s.Shah a& shah For Respondents: Mr.V.Chandrasekaran Senior Panel Counsel For R1 Mr.P.Ebenezer Paul For R2 Mr.G.Balasubramanian for M/s.Leela & Co Mr.Dhruva for R5 No appearance for R3, R6 to R12