[This is a continuation of our earlier article on the Kerala Judgement on Right to Forget]
The essential part of the legal point considered by the bench in this case was “Whether in certain cases such as the matrimonial disputes, a party to that proceedings can seek an order to mask his/her name and address and that of the party respondent(s) in the cause title of the judgment and also his/her name and that of the party respondent(s) in the body of the judgment, in order to protect his/her right to privacy, described as the ‘right to be let alone’.
Did Puttawaamy Judgement rule on Right to Forget?
In some of the underlying judgements referred to in this order an argument had been raised that in the Puttaswamy Judgement (Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v. Union of India and Others [(2017) 10 SCC 1]), it is held that “Right to Privacy” includes the “Right to be forgotten” and hence the petitioner is entitled to the protection of his fundamental right to privacy and has a right to erase contents that are unnecessary, irrelevant, inadequate or no longer relevant.
This contention also requires to be looked at from the point of view of whether Puttaswamy judgement has any precendence value in respect of the “Right to be forgotten being part of the Right to Privacy” since this was not part of the order. Hence whether this is part of the “Ratio Decidendi” or not remains a debatable issue. (PS: Refer this article for more on Article 141 operation).
It is an admitted principle that “Orbiter Dicta” does not have the force of precedence under Article 141 and hence it is important to understand in Puttaswamy judgement what is the ratio decidendi and what is orbiter dicta.
Ratio-Decidendi’ is the determining point which becomes the base for a judgement. On the other hand obiter-dictum’ connotes a judge’s expression of opinion uttered in court or giving judgement, but not essential to the decision and therefore without binding authority.
The obiter dictum may be termed as a casual remark of the court while deciding the actual issues, which is considered as beyond the ambit of the operative part of the judgement.
In the Puttaswamy judgement, “Whether Right to Forget is part of Right to Privacy” cannot be considered as “Ratio decidendi” while in the subject Kerala Judgement it is the main issue that was considered and adjudicated. Hence this point is ratio decidendi for this case and not for Puttaswamy case.
…To Be Continued
Naavi
All articles in the series:
Hats off to the Kerala Judgement on Right to Forget-5: Evolution of the Right to be forgotten
Hats off to the Kerala Judgement on Right to Forget-4: Need for Transparency in Judiciary
Hats off to the Kerala Judgement on Right to Forget-3: Right to Forget is not Right to Anonymity..
Hats off to the Kerala Judgement on Right to Forget..2: Ratio Decidendi in Puttaswamy Judgement
Hats off to Kerala High Court for it’s treatise on Right to Forget
