The Delhi High Court recently underscored the financial constraints faced by many legal professionals in accessing paid legal research databases, emphasizing their reliance on free platforms such as Indian Kanoon. This observation emerged during a session with Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar, who were deliberating on appeals against a single-judge decision that upheld the ‘right to be forgotten’.
Legal Accessibility and Economic Constraints
The Court highlighted that numerous lawyers, particularly those practicing outside of commercial law, cannot afford subscriptions to premium services like Manupatra and SCC Online. These services offer unredacted versions of judicial decisions, which remain inaccessible to many due to their cost. Justice Shankar remarked, “Indiankanoon is a free website… A vast majority of our legal profession today are persons in mufassil towns, appearing before munsifs and judges of small causes… They do not have the wherewithal to get access to a Manupatra or SCC Online.”
Impact on Legal Professionals’ Livelihood
The Court further noted that a lawyer’s livelihood depends significantly on easy access to legal judgments. “A lawyer’s livelihood is dependent on access to the law and legal judgments… You cannot make the fellow pay. You are blocking his right to livelihood,” the bench observed. The judges expressed concern that the ‘right to be forgotten’ verdict severely impacts this access for those who cannot afford paid databases.
Debate on the Right to be Forgotten
This legal discussion traces back to a June 1 judgment by Justice Sachin Datta, which acknowledged the ‘right to be forgotten’, allowing individuals to request the removal of their names from searchable court records when deemed irrelevant. Indian Kanoon, facing challenges from this judgment, argued that similar unredacted judgments continue to be accessible via other paid portals.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing a respondent, contended that although judgments are not entirely erased, the ‘right to be forgotten’ does create barriers. “The person can still access the judgment… What is the relevance of the judicial record of my name?” Sibal argued. However, the Court countered that blocking access through case titles effectively restricts access for many practitioners.
More Read
The Balance Between Privacy and Public Access
Justice Shankar critiqued the argument that judgments could still be accessed using alternative search criteria, such as case numbers or dates, noting the impracticality of remembering such details. The Court stressed that claims to privacy are typically upheld in matters of personal life and relationships, while judicial records are already in the public domain.
Sibal, representing a person previously involved in a CBI case, emphasized the importance of his client’s right to be forgotten, stating, “What about me? What about my presumption of innocence and my reputation?” The Court is scheduled to continue hearings on this matter on September 21.
